Public report of opendataloader-project/opendataloader-pdf, published 24 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of
findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known
vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive reportMeasured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey →
Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 24 October 2026, 04:34 UTC · Survey ID cd_168db347630048b48d9faf64b0fd9bd8
opendataloader-project/opendataloader-pdf
Measured 24 October 2026, 04:29 UTC, at code version 48cdd35
A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.
Code coverage is not measured: JavaScript/TypeScript suite (CouldNotMeasureNoCollector).
CAI scoreAt riskNo change since the last survey
The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.
A medium codebase: 25,710 lines of product code in 6 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.3 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 52
Findings by how serious they are
50 critical180 serious48 minor
12 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
24 October 2026, 04:29 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number
together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee
the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that
implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.
A critical security finding is open, such as a library with a known critical vulnerability or a password or key found in the code. The score itself is unchanged, but its band shows At risk until the finding is fixed. See the Security and Compliance lens.
The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸
71of 75 dimensions measured by tools. The other 4 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
254of 278 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 24 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
75dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 25,710 lines of product code in 6 projects.
opendataloader-project/opendataloader-pdf scores 60 out of 100, but it is rated At risk while a critical security finding is open; the score itself is unchanged.
The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 52 and is rated Adequate. Its Security & performance tooling dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality and to record your significant design decisions, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 60 to about 65.
50 findings are critical: 43 in Static Analysis (SAST), four in Dependency Vulnerabilities and three in Secrets (history).
Watchdog couldn't measure 11 dimensions in this code, among them Test Reliability, Dependency Hygiene and Navigability, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 25,710 lines, which would take an estimated 0.3 person-years, around €47,000, to rebuild.
A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.
How the score is built: what each lens counts forThe lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.
Fixed since the last survey: 20 findings
These 20 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 10 October 2026, and are gone from this one.
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/pdf/PDFWriter.java
Test Quality · No assertions: testCreateDoclingFastClientCaseInsensitive java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/HybridClientFactoryTest.java
Test Quality · No assertions: landscapeA4ScanRoutesToBackend java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/ScannedPageTriageIntegrationTest.java
Test Quality · No assertions: landscapeLetterJpegScanRoutesToBackend java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/ScannedPageTriageIntegrationTest.java
Test Quality · No assertions: portraitA4ScanRoutesToBackend java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/ScannedPageTriageIntegrationTest.java
Test Quality · No assertions: rotatedPortraitScanRoutesToBackend java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/ScannedPageTriageIntegrationTest.java
Test Quality · No assertions: testMultipleReplacementsInSingleChunk java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/utils/ContentSanitizerTest.java
Test Quality · No assertions: testReplaceCoveringMultipleFullChunks java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/utils/ContentSanitizerTest.java
Test Quality · No assertions: testReplaceCoveringOneFullChunkInArray java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/utils/ContentSanitizerTest.java
Test Quality · No assertions: testReplaceCoveringPartsOfChunks java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/utils/ContentSanitizerTest.java
Test Quality · No assertions: autoModeSendsLandscapeScanToBackend java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/HybridScannedPageRoutingIntegrationTest.java
Test Quality · No assertions: autoModeSendsPortraitScanToBackend java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/HybridScannedPageRoutingIntegrationTest.java
Test Quality · No assertions: test java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/IntegrationTest.java
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €47,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€16,000 to €79,000, for 260 to 826 hours of work, about 0.3 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem
Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor
×0.8 at a score of 60. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size
Medium: 25,710 lines of product code
How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.
Top priorities
The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.
1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 5 points · Low effort · ADR Quality
2
Record your significant design decisions.
Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.
Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €47,000 to build again, about 0.3 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 52 (Adequate). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 5 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 ADR Quality findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort
What hard-to-read code costs each year · Cost
Four dimensions measure how easy the code is to work in: two measure how tangled its logic is, one how much of it is copied, and one how well each part sticks to a single job. In this codebase they average 6.9 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and Watchdog estimates the extra work at 3% to 6% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 23,388 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 94,851 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 6.8 to 40.7 engineer-days a year, and it grows as more code changes.
How this is estimated: The number of changed lines is measured from the history of the code. The rest rests on two assumptions of Watchdog's own: code scoring 8 out of 10 or more adds no extra work, and each point below 8 adds 2.5% to 5.6% to every change; and an engineer changes 150 to 400 lines in a day. The result is a range for planning, not a measurement.
Based on: Cyclomatic Complexity · Cognitive Complexity · Code Duplication · Cohesion (LCOM4) · the code's change history
What to do: Start with the files listed under Churn × Complexity Hotspots, which change often and are hard to read, because that is where the extra work is paid most often.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.
33 modules, with 24 dependencies between them. One loop runs through 2 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.
Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
node.opendataloader-pdf.src uses node.opendataloader-pdf.src.convert-options_generated, so a change to node.opendataloader-pdf.src.convert-options_generated can break node.opendataloader-pdf.src, while a change to node.opendataloader-pdf.src can't break node.opendataloader-pdf.src.convert-options_generated.
Position
Below the diagonal: node.opendataloader-pdf.src uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid uses org.opendataloader.pdf.entities, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.entities can break org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.entities.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.utils uses org.opendataloader.pdf.entities, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.entities can break org.opendataloader.pdf.utils, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.utils can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.entities.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.utils uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
node.opendataloader-pdf uses node.opendataloader-pdf.src.convert-options_generated, so a change to node.opendataloader-pdf.src.convert-options_generated can break node.opendataloader-pdf, while a change to node.opendataloader-pdf can't break node.opendataloader-pdf.src.convert-options_generated.
Position
Below the diagonal: node.opendataloader-pdf uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
node.opendataloader-pdf uses node.opendataloader-pdf.src, so a change to node.opendataloader-pdf.src can break node.opendataloader-pdf, while a change to node.opendataloader-pdf can't break node.opendataloader-pdf.src.
Position
Below the diagonal: node.opendataloader-pdf uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.json uses org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid can break org.opendataloader.pdf.json, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.json can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.json uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.json.serializers uses org.opendataloader.pdf.entities, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.entities can break org.opendataloader.pdf.json.serializers, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.json.serializers can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.entities.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.json.serializers uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.json.serializers uses org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid can break org.opendataloader.pdf.json.serializers, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.json.serializers can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.json.serializers uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.processors uses org.opendataloader.pdf.autotagging, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.autotagging can break org.opendataloader.pdf.processors, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.processors can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.autotagging.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.processors uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.processors uses org.opendataloader.pdf.entities, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.entities can break org.opendataloader.pdf.processors, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.processors can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.entities.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.processors uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.processors uses org.opendataloader.pdf.utils.levels, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.utils.levels can break org.opendataloader.pdf.processors, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.processors can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.utils.levels.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.processors uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.processors uses org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid can break org.opendataloader.pdf.processors, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.processors can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.processors uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.processors uses org.opendataloader.pdf.utils, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.utils can break org.opendataloader.pdf.processors, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.processors can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.utils.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.processors uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→28 org.opendataloader.pdf.processors uses org.opendataloader.pdf.apipart of a loop✕
Connections
4 pairs of types, where a type in org.opendataloader.pdf.processors uses a type in org.opendataloader.pdf.api.
org.opendataloader.pdf.processors uses org.opendataloader.pdf.api, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.api can break org.opendataloader.pdf.processors, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.processors can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.api.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
org.opendataloader.pdf.api uses org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid can break org.opendataloader.pdf.api, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.api can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.hybrid.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.api uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.api uses org.opendataloader.pdf.utils, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.utils can break org.opendataloader.pdf.api, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.api can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.utils.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.api uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.api uses org.opendataloader.pdf.processors, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.processors can break org.opendataloader.pdf.api, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.api can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.processors.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.api uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.api.cli uses org.opendataloader.pdf.api, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.api can break org.opendataloader.pdf.api.cli, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.api.cli can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.api.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.api.cli uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.cli uses org.opendataloader.pdf.api, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.api can break org.opendataloader.pdf.cli, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.cli can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.api.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.cli uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.html uses org.opendataloader.pdf.entities, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.entities can break org.opendataloader.pdf.html, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.html can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.entities.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.html uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.html uses org.opendataloader.pdf.api, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.api can break org.opendataloader.pdf.html, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.html can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.api.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.html uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.markdown uses org.opendataloader.pdf.entities, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.entities can break org.opendataloader.pdf.markdown, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.markdown can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.entities.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.markdown uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.markdown uses org.opendataloader.pdf.api, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.api can break org.opendataloader.pdf.markdown, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.markdown can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.api.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.markdown uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
org.opendataloader.pdf.text uses org.opendataloader.pdf.api, so a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.api can break org.opendataloader.pdf.text, while a change to org.opendataloader.pdf.text can't break org.opendataloader.pdf.api.
Position
Below the diagonal: org.opendataloader.pdf.text uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health · 75% · Adequate · gated by D2 ·
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A05:2025 — Injection
43
High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures
12
High / Critical
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures
4
High / Critical
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration
1
Medium
Roadmap
Begin by documenting significant design decisions in a dedicated folder to establish a clear architectural record. Strengthen the build pipeline by integrating automated security scanning to prevent regressions and configuring draft releases to allow safe, human-gated deployments. Finally, restrict public API exposure by hiding internal implementation types to ensure library stability and flexibility for future changes.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Keep implementation types off the public surface (Java: package-private (no modifier), or leave its package out of `module-info` exports) so internals can change without breaking consumers.
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 — 50
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 — 180
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 — 48
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 12
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. 71 of 75 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 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 — 75 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 254 of 278 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
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 686 test(s) behind this row are the ones the code-model census could read, and this repository also carries at least 18 test source file(s) (.py, .ts) that it cannot: it reads the test types the .java 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 .java, and the jvm executor ran against the .java half and could not be re-run to completion inside our analyzer environment — so reliability was not measured for the repository as a whole. The JavaScript/TypeScript (vitest via `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` in node/opendataloader-pdf/ (40 tests)): measured (0 flaky); Python (2 distributions): measured (0 flaky) suite(s) did re-run, and came back with 0 flaky across 2 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. The remedy is our analyzer environment, not a runner nobody has built.
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. Not scored — 3 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 0 dependency(ies) and leaving 23 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
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 Python distribution 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.
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 Maven POM, but the licence verdict published here was taken over its Python distribution dependencies. Nothing was read about its Maven dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
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 this repository defines its own container in python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py, whose lifetimes are not modelled yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and this repository's Java, Python is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
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 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
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.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D22, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
26 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ci-verify.main at 97. A further 2 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being ChunksWriter.processOperator at 34 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 2 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: java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/autotagging/ChunksWriter.java (ChunksWriter.processOperator at 34), java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TaggedDocumentProcessor.java (TaggedDocumentProcessor.processStructElem 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.
+ 21 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 1 body over 60 down to 60 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ci-verify.main (cyclomatic 97). — Refactoring it lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 6.0 to about 6.5/10.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 54 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 3 bodies over 60 down to 60 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with ci-verify.main (cognitive 169), LevelProcessor.setLevels (cognitive 76), ListProcessor.checkNeighborLists (cognitive 61). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 3 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 2.8 to about 5.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 60; a cleaner split scores higher.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 7 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with ci-verify.py, hybrid_server.py, AutoTaggingProcessor.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Config.java, AutoTaggingProcessor.java, HybridDocumentProcessor.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with AutoTaggingProcessor.java, HybridDocumentProcessor.java, TriageProcessor.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
47 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 3 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. 1 of the 50 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.
+ 28 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with HtmlGenerator.java, MarkdownGenerator.java, ListProcessor.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with ci-verify.py (2), MarkdownGenerator.java, HeaderFooterProcessor.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with HtmlGenerator.java, ParagraphProcessor.java, TextChunkSerializer.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
5 production modules (Maven+npm+Python), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 1 module(s) off the main sequence.
Off the main sequence: opendataloader-pdf-core
What to do
Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with ElementMetadata.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
921 test methods: 920 unit, 1 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 40 `it`/`test` case(s) across 5 test file(s) declaring at least one beside 686 .NET test method(s); its tier split is read from package names and paths only. The Python suite contributes 195 test function(s) across 12 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.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality9.9 / 10Stronggated by 4 serious findings✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
10 skipped (10 with a documented reason), 4 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 686 tests. Measured on the .java suite only — at least 18 test source file(s) (.py, .ts) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.
No assertions: testCheckAvailabilitySucceeds · ×4java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/DoclingFastServerClientTest.java:191
Resolve the 4 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with HybridDocumentProcessorTest.java (3), DoclingFastServerClientTest.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-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.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
0 of 28 shipped Python distribution(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from PyPI over the distributions a consumer installs — this repository's 1 declared runtime requirement(s) closed transitively over each distribution's published `requires_dist` (27 reached that way). Requirements it states ONLY under an extra, a PEP 735 dependency group, a Poetry dev group or a dev-named requirements file are excluded: pip does not install any of them for a consumer. ★ This repository commits no dependency lockfile that this pass reads, so each licence is the one PyPI publishes for the distribution's CURRENT release rather than for a pinned version. This repository publishes itself under Apache-2.0, which is its own choice and is not judged here. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's Python distribution dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares package.json and a Maven POM, 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.
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.
Resolve the 6 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with ci-verify.py, AutoTaggingProcessor.java, DocumentProcessor.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor7.5 / 10Strong✓ 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.
18 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/TriageProcessor.java. Counted over 78 of the 121 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
Further sole-owners (lower concentration)
What to do
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
3 deducted task-comment markers across 25710 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.
Resolve the 3 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with AutoTaggingProcessor.java (2), ListProcessor.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
The repository's root README (OpenDataLoader PDF) is a stellar overview of the project and its benchmarked capabilities, including licensing, prerequisites, an extraction-benchmark ranking, key differentiators, and a full outline. The skills/READMEs are focused on their directories: the skills directory's README explains what each skill does for humans while pointing to the installed ODL skill's own documentation; the python/opendataloader-pdf-mcp README gives installation, usage across multiple MCP clients, and a detailed tool section (convert_pdf with parameters); the odl-pdf README is an excellent durable-procedure guide covering runtime help reading, capability translation, silent-failure guarding, and maintenance-kit co-location. The residual-review-findings doc lists PR-level findings that are not yet applied but do not appear in any of these focused documents.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D22 · Internal API ConsistencyWeak◐ Sampled · advisory
What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.
Duplicate intent with divergent signatures: The library exposes two distinct entry points for PDF conversion ('convert' vs 'run') in both Python and Node.js. In Python, `convert_generated.convert` accepts a list of inputs and returns None (side-effect based), while `wrapper.run` accepts a single string input. In Node.js, `index.convert` accepts string|string[] and returns a Promise<string>, while `index.run` accepts a single string and returns a Promise<string>. The distinction between 'convert' and 'run' is semantically unclear, and the input handling (single vs list) is inconsistent across the parallel APIs.
Inconsistent parameter naming and typing for character replacement: Python uses `replace_invalid_chars` (snake_case, Optional[str]), while Node.js uses `replaceInvalidChars` (camelCase, required string in both options types). The Python signature suggests it might be optional or a single character, whereas Node.js requires a string, implying different default behaviors or validation rules.
Fragmented OCR/Hybrid configuration: Python exposes detailed OCR engine parameters (`ocr_engine`, `psm`, `ocr_lang`, `enrich_formula`) in `create_converter` and `create_app`, while the Node.js API abstracts this into a single `hybridUrl` string in `ConvertOptions`. This makes the Node.js API less flexible and harder to configure precisely compared to the Python API, creating a capability gap.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Duplicate intent with divergent signatures finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent parameter naming and typing for character replacement finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Fragmented OCR/Hybrid configuration finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
1 of 6 build units (Maven, Python, npm) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
What to do
Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: REDACTED 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.
3 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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).
43 finding(s): 0 critical, 43 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 40 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) — `scripts/preflight.sh` (line 198, line 199) — 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 2 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
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).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 40 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 (40 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.
Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.
Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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).
Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
1 of 78 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is python/opendataloader-pdf-mcp/src/opendataloader_pdf_mcp/server.py. Counted over 78 of the 121 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
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.
Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with DoclingFastServerClient.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.
Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.
What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.
Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.
What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.
Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 5 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').
Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.
Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords, in this repository's Java: methods that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant or do nothing, dead `if (false)` branches, and skeleton classes most of whose methods are holes.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.
A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something. — java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/issues/Issue408FileLockTest.java:144
What to do
Clear the softer debt: re-enable or delete @Disabled/@Ignore tests, decide whether each empty method or UnsupportedOperationException is deliberate (and say so in a comment), and replace @SuppressWarnings("all") with targeted, justified suppressions.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add a README to the 5 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.7 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
What to do
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether 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 & versioning6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
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.
114/129 types (88%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.
What to do
Keep implementation types off the public surface (Java: package-private (no modifier), or leave its package out of `module-info` exports) so internals can change without breaking consumers.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.
Only 4/6 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `node/opendataloader-pdf`, `python/opendataloader-pdf-mcp`.
What to do
Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
Add OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry-java or Micrometer) so requests are traceable across the system, not just health-probable.
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 spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (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 34834 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: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are 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.
The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.
What to do
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.
Method: Source scan: outbound HTTP clients and what bounds them — resilience handlers (Polly, AddStandardResilienceHandler) on .NET; on Go, the JVM, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Elixir, Swift, Dart and Erlang, a timeout, deadline, retry or breaker beside each call, or a process-wide client default (a framework-wide deadline such as Drupal core's, Laravel's or actix's awc counts). Exhaustive, deterministic.
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, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — 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 Safety6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.
6 typed · 4 plain JS — the untyped files are node/opendataloader-pdf/scripts/setup.cjs, scripts/generate-options.mjs, scripts/generate-schema.mjs, scripts/utils.mjs.
What to do
Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
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.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R3 · Large Files10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R6 · Tooling6.7 / 10Adequate✓ 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 Code10.0 / 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.
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.
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.
Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.
Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
`sanitize_unicode` is public and takes `data: Any` from its caller, and it calls itself at line 806 (`sanitize_unicode`) with a piece of `data` (and at line 808) — and nowhere in `sanitize_unicode` is there a depth parameter, a descent counter, or any other cap. The walk therefore spends one stack frame per LEVEL of the value it is handed, so the nesting of the caller's document — not this code — decides how deep the stack goes. Python's parsers accept far more nesting than its stack allows: `json.loads` turns 3,000 bytes of brackets into 1,500 levels and `xml.etree.ElementTree` parses tens of thousands, while a walk like this one raises `RecursionError` once it passes the interpreter's default limit of 1,000 frames. Wherever that exception lands, the work fails: a request errors, and outside any `try` the worker or the program exits with it. Raising `sys.setrecursionlimit` only moves the number the document has to beat. Thread a depth argument through `sanitize_unicode` and reject the value past a fixed maximum, or rewrite the descent with an explicit stack. — python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:806
What to do
Each finding names the externally-callable member that accepts the document and the self-call that descends, and states that no depth parameter or counter exists anywhere in the walk. Confirm from the two, then thread a depth argument through the walk and reject documents past a fixed maximum, or rewrite it with an explicit stack.
Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `NullPointerException` (Java, Kotlin, Scala), `ArgumentError.notNull` (Dart) or `ArgumentNullException` (F#'s `nullArg`) tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.
Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.
Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.
Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.
Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether an enhanced `for` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is iterating invalidates the fail-fast iterator it is holding, so the next `next()` throws `ConcurrentModificationException` and the remaining elements are never seen. Whether a `for` loop leaves the `dict`, `set` or `deque` it is walking alone — CPython's iterators over those check that the collection has not changed size since the loop began, so a body that removes from (or empties) the very collection the loop is walking makes the next step raise `RuntimeError: dictionary changed size during iteration` and the remaining items are never seen.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.
`info` at line 77 is handed an f-string as its message, so the logger receives one finished string — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, every occurrence reads as a different message, and the string is built even when the record is filtered out. Pass the values beside a constant message instead: `logger.info("order %s moved to %s", order_id, status)` with the standard library's `logging`, which keeps the message and its arguments apart on the record, or `log.info("order moved", order_id=order_id, status=status)` with structlog. — build-scripts/fetch_shaded_jar.py:77
`info` at line 1148 is handed an f-string as its message, so the logger receives one finished string — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, every occurrence reads as a different message, and the string is built even when the record is filtered out. Pass the values beside a constant message instead: `logger.info("order %s moved to %s", order_id, status)` with the standard library's `logging`, which keeps the message and its arguments apart on the record, or `log.info("order moved", order_id=order_id, status=status)` with structlog. — python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:1148
`info` at line 1484 is handed an f-string as its message, so the logger receives one finished string — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, every occurrence reads as a different message, and the string is built even when the record is filtered out. Pass the values beside a constant message instead: `logger.info("order %s moved to %s", order_id, status)` with the standard library's `logging`, which keeps the message and its arguments apart on the record, or `log.info("order moved", order_id=order_id, status=status)` with structlog. — python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:1484
`info` at line 1498 is handed an f-string as its message, so the logger receives one finished string — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, every occurrence reads as a different message, and the string is built even when the record is filtered out. Pass the values beside a constant message instead: `logger.info("order %s moved to %s", order_id, status)` with the standard library's `logging`, which keeps the message and its arguments apart on the record, or `log.info("order moved", order_id=order_id, status=status)` with structlog. — python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:1498
Other · Code Health — Whether strict null checking is enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` assertion — TypeScript's `strictNullChecks` (which `strict` turns on) is what makes `string` exclude `null` and `undefined`, and the postfix `!` is the operator that silences it.
Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 13 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 51 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No class in this Java code is a Spring, JSR-330 or CDI singleton bean. No function in this Python code is served by a threaded web framework (a Flask, Bottle or FastAPI route, a Django or Pyramid view), so no module is shared between request threads. TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not scored — polyglot repository, one half's runner produced no measurement
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 3 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 0 dependency(ies) and leaving 23 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.java), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
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.
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 MEASURED: the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — node/opendataloader-pdf/ runs vitest but declares no coverage provider, so the suite can run and still produce no lcov — add `@vitest/coverage-v8` (or `@vitest/coverage-istanbul`) as a devDependency. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (4 value object(s))
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report` or the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) 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 Java, Kotlin or Scala file importing JMH or kotlinx-benchmark, Jetpack Benchmark's `measureRepeated` in a file importing androidx.benchmark, or JMH/kotlinx-benchmark/androidx.benchmark in a pom.xml, Gradle or sbt build, 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.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's Java code has 22,432 production line(s), 5 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
R4 Test Coverage — 5 test file(s) reach none of 2 production file(s) via imports — exercised outside the JS import graph (integration/bundled), not import-reachable
R5 Dependency Freshness — uses a pnpm lockfile — dependency freshness not measured here; JS/npm CVEs are scored in D30 (Dependency Vulnerabilities), which answers every ecosystem
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Java and Python were read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller — a Java request off Android takes no token: it is cancelled through the handle it returns (Future.cancel, Call.cancel, a Disposable), ambiently (io.grpc.Context) or by interrupting its thread, not through a parameter; a Python request takes no token: asyncio cancels the task and trio or anyio the scope that made it, from outside the call, and requests, httpx, aiohttp and gRPC take a timeout, not a cancellation
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.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — 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.
FileTooLong: verification/ci-verify.py verification/ci-verify.py— FileTooLong — 1260 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 760 over it, 2.52× 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: opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py— FileTooLong — 1033 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 533 over it, 2.07× 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: processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java— FileTooLong — 956 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 96% of them inside a single declaration: AutoTaggingProcessor (47-1519). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 456 over it, 1.91× 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: processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java— FileTooLong — 649 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 92% of them inside a single declaration: HybridDocumentProcessor (84-1337). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 149 over it, 1.30× 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: processors/DocumentProcessor.java java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java— FileTooLong — 619 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 119 over it, 1.24× 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: hybrid/TriageProcessor.java java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/TriageProcessor.java— FileTooLong — 545 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 97% of them inside a single declaration: TriageProcessor (49-1195). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 45 over it, 1.09× 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: cli/CLIOptions.java java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/api/cli/CLIOptions.java— FileTooLong — 538 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 97% of them inside a single declaration: CLIOptions (67-820). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 38 over it, 1.08× 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.
Hotspot: verification/ci-verify.py verification/ci-verify.py:1119— verification/ci-verify.py changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 97 in ci-verify.main at line 1119. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 10:50:35 +09:00' --until='2026-10-23 10:50:35 +09:00' --full-history --no-merges -- verification/ci-verify.py`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:1331— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java changed 17 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 22 in AutoTaggingProcessor.mergeAdjacentTextShows at line 1331. 10 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 10:50:35 +09:00' --until='2026-10-23 10:50:35 +09:00' --full-history --no-merges -- java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java:360— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java changed 16 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 23 in DocumentProcessor.processDocument at line 360. 11 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 10:50:35 +09:00' --until='2026-10-23 10:50:35 +09:00' --full-history --no-merges -- java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/api/cli/CLIOptions.java java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/api/cli/CLIOptions.java:657— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/api/cli/CLIOptions.java changed 13 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 24 in CLIOptions.applyHybridOptions at line 657. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 11 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 10:50:35 +09:00' --until='2026-10-23 10:50:35 +09:00' --full-history --no-merges -- java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/api/cli/CLIOptions.java`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:1599— python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 32 in hybrid_server.main at line 1599. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 10:50:35 +09:00' --until='2026-10-23 10:50:35 +09:00' --full-history --no-merges -- python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:616— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 20 in HybridDocumentProcessor.processBackendPath at line 616. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 6 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 10:50:35 +09:00' --until='2026-10-23 10:50:35 +09:00' --full-history --no-merges -- java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:232— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:232-242 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:271-281 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:232` 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) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java:207— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java:207-217 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java:245-255 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java:207` 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) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java:165— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java:165-175 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TableOfContentsProcessor.java:99-109 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java: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. 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 (11 lines × 2) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TaggedDocumentProcessor.java:227— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TaggedDocumentProcessor.java:227-237 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TaggedDocumentProcessor.java:465-475 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TaggedDocumentProcessor.java:227` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) python/opendataloader-pdf-mcp/src/opendataloader_pdf_mcp/server.py:105— python/opendataloader-pdf-mcp/src/opendataloader_pdf_mcp/server.py:105-115 | python/opendataloader-pdf-mcp/src/opendataloader_pdf_mcp/server.py:132-142 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) examples/python/rag/basic_chunking.py:173— examples/python/rag/basic_chunking.py:173-183 | examples/python/rag/langchain_example.py:21-31 — 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. 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.
TooManyMethods: Config java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/api/Config.java:32— TooManyMethods — 83 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 53 over it, 2.77× 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: AutoTaggingProcessor java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:47— TooManyMethods — 69 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 39 over it, 2.30× 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: HybridDocumentProcessor java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:84— 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: DocumentProcessor java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java:83— 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: TriageSignals java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/TriageProcessor.java:248— 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.
ClassTooLong: AutoTaggingProcessor java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:47— ClassTooLong — 914 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 69 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 514 over it, 2.29× 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: HybridDocumentProcessor java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:84— ClassTooLong — 598 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 37 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 198 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.
ClassTooLong: TriageProcessor java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/TriageProcessor.java:49— ClassTooLong — 528 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 11 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 128 over it, 1.32× 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: CLIOptions java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/api/cli/CLIOptions.java:67— ClassTooLong — 521 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 15 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 121 over it, 1.30× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: ListProcessor java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java:49— ClassTooLong — 411 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 28 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 11 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.
No assertions: testCheckAvailabilitySucceeds java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/DoclingFastServerClientTest.java:191— This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, 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: testFailFast_EmptyFailedPages_NoFallback_DoesNotThrow java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessorTest.java:503— This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, 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: testFailFast_EmptyFailedPages_WithFallback_DoesNotThrow java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessorTest.java:513— This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, 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: testFailFast_NonEmptyFailedPages_WithFallback_DoesNotThrow java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessorTest.java:521— This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, 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.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java:224— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java:224-232 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java:258-266 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java:224` 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 (9 lines × 2) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HeaderFooterProcessor.java:214— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HeaderFooterProcessor.java:214-222 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HeaderFooterProcessor.java:225-233 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HeaderFooterProcessor.java:214` 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 (9 lines × 2) verification/ci-verify.py:621— verification/ci-verify.py:621-629 | verification/ci-verify.py:646-654 — 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) verification/ci-verify.py:1179— verification/ci-verify.py:1179-1187 | verification/ci-verify.py:1208-1216 — 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.
TodoComment java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java:116— //todo move to arabic number list recognition — 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 java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:536— //TODO Use AI to generate descriptions — 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 java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:974— // TODO(a11y): when alt is missing, re-tag as /Artifact (decorative) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:449— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:449-460 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownHTMLGenerator.java:70-81 — 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) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:316— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:316-327 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:426-437 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:316` 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 (12 lines × 2) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/TextChunkSerializer.java:28— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/TextChunkSerializer.java:28-39 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/TextLineSerializer.java:28-39 — 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `t` to `Class<TextChunk>` in one and `Class<TextLine>` 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.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/ListItemSerializer.java:39— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/ListItemSerializer.java:39-48 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/TOCItemSerializer.java:39-48 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/ListItemSerializer.java:39` 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 `item` to `ListItem` in one and `SemanticTOCI` 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.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:218— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:218-227 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:228-237 — 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) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:507— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:507-516 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java:442-451 — 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. 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 (15 lines × 2) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/ImageSerializer.java:67— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/ImageSerializer.java:67-81 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/PictureSerializer.java:65-79 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/ImageSerializer.java:67` 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) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/readingorder/XYCutPlusPlusSorter.java:532— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/readingorder/XYCutPlusPlusSorter.java:532-546 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/readingorder/XYCutPlusPlusSorter.java:564-578 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/readingorder/XYCutPlusPlusSorter.java:532` 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 (13 lines × 2) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TableStructureNormalizer.java:287— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TableStructureNormalizer.java:287-299 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TableStructureNormalizer.java:306-318 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TableStructureNormalizer.java:287` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also 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) verification/ci-verify.py:1361— verification/ci-verify.py:1361-1373 | verification/ci-verify.py:1375-1387 — 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) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java:466— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java:466-472 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java:507-513 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java:466` 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) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HeadingProcessor.java:204— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HeadingProcessor.java:204-210 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HeadingProcessor.java:228-234 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HeadingProcessor.java:204` 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) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java:127— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java:127-132 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java:139-144 — 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.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) build-scripts/set_version.py:12— build-scripts/set_version.py:12-17 | build-scripts/set_version.py:20-25 — 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) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:124— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:124-128 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java:98-102 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java: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 (5 lines × 2) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/utils/ContentSanitizer.java:91— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/utils/ContentSanitizer.java:91-95 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/utils/ImagesUtils.java:96-100 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/utils/ContentSanitizer.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.
ci-verify.main (cyclomatic 97) verification/ci-verify.py:1119— ci-verify.main has cyclomatic complexity 97 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: verification/ci-verify.py holds 3 of the 26 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 94 of the 239 points over it (39%), 5.5× the next-largest file (python/opendataloader-pdf-mcp/src/opendataloader_pdf_mcp/server.py at 17). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
hybrid_server.main (cyclomatic 32) python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:1599— hybrid_server.main has cyclomatic complexity 32 (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.
server.convert_pdf (cyclomatic 32) python/opendataloader-pdf-mcp/src/opendataloader_pdf_mcp/server.py:15— server.convert_pdf has cyclomatic complexity 32 (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.
DoclingSchemaTransformer.transformTable (cyclomatic 29) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/DoclingSchemaTransformer.java:444— DoclingSchemaTransformer.transformTable 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.
HybridDocumentProcessor.processDocument (cyclomatic 26) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:217— HybridDocumentProcessor.processDocument has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
CLIOptions.applyHybridOptions (cyclomatic 24) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/api/cli/CLIOptions.java:657— CLIOptions.applyHybridOptions has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
DocumentProcessor.processDocument (cyclomatic 23) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java:360— DocumentProcessor.processDocument 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.
LevelProcessor.setLevels (cyclomatic 23) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/LevelProcessor.java:45— LevelProcessor.setLevels has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
TextDecorationProcessor.processStrikethroughAndUnderlinedText (cyclomatic 23) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TextDecorationProcessor.java:59— TextDecorationProcessor.processStrikethroughAndUnderlinedText has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
SerializerUtil.writeMetadataIfPresent (cyclomatic 22) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/SerializerUtil.java:51— SerializerUtil.writeMetadataIfPresent 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.
AutoTaggingProcessor.mergeAdjacentTextShows (cyclomatic 22) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:1331— AutoTaggingProcessor.mergeAdjacentTextShows 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.
ci-verify.verify_sanitize_rules_file (cyclomatic 22) verification/ci-verify.py:1001— ci-verify.verify_sanitize_rules_file 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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: verification/ci-verify.py holds 3 of the 26 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 94 of the 239 points over it (39%), 5.5× the next-largest file (python/opendataloader-pdf-mcp/src/opendataloader_pdf_mcp/server.py at 17). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
CLIOptions.applyAllTo (cyclomatic 21) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/api/cli/CLIOptions.java:330— CLIOptions.applyAllTo has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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.
HybridDocumentProcessor.processBackendPath (cyclomatic 20) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:616— HybridDocumentProcessor.processBackendPath has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ListProcessor.checkNeighborLists (cyclomatic 20) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java:498— ListProcessor.checkNeighborLists has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ci-verify.verify_input_validation (cyclomatic 20) verification/ci-verify.py:613— ci-verify.verify_input_validation has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: verification/ci-verify.py holds 3 of the 26 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 94 of the 239 points over it (39%), 5.5× the next-largest file (python/opendataloader-pdf-mcp/src/opendataloader_pdf_mcp/server.py at 17). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
ContentSanitizer.applyReplacementsToChunks (cyclomatic 19) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/utils/ContentSanitizer.java:133— ContentSanitizer.applyReplacementsToChunks 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.
CaptionProcessor.processCaptions (cyclomatic 18) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/CaptionProcessor.java:49— CaptionProcessor.processCaptions 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.
DocumentProcessor.collectMetadata (cyclomatic 18) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java:593— DocumentProcessor.collectMetadata 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.
TableBorderProcessor.processTableBorders (cyclomatic 18) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TableBorderProcessor.java:54— TableBorderProcessor.processTableBorders 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.
SerializerUtil.pdfuaTagFor (cyclomatic 17) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/SerializerUtil.java:154— SerializerUtil.pdfuaTagFor 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.
PDFStreamWriter.write (cyclomatic 17) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/PDFStreamWriter.java:33— PDFStreamWriter.write 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.
LevelInfo.areSameLevelsInfos (cyclomatic 17) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/utils/levels/LevelInfo.java:36— LevelInfo.areSameLevelsInfos 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.
pr-reminders.plan (cyclomatic 17) scripts/pr-reminders.py:218— pr-reminders.plan 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.
AutoTaggingProcessor.createListStructElem (cyclomatic 16) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:1005— AutoTaggingProcessor.createListStructElem has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
TableBorderProcessor.addContentToTableBorder (cyclomatic 16) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TableBorderProcessor.java:124— TableBorderProcessor.addContentToTableBorder has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Repeated repair: REDACTED REDACTED:279— REDACTED changed 5 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 1 (its worst body is FilterConfig.addFilterRule at line 279), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix: mask IPv6 addresses next to labels, ports, and hyphens”; “fix: guard IPv6 token boundaries and skip empty sanitization matches”; “fix: preserve timestamps during IPv6 sanitization”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 10:50:35 +09:00' --until='2026-10-23 10:50:35 +09:00' --full-history --no-merges -- REDACTED`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
ci-verify.main (cognitive 169) verification/ci-verify.py:1119— ci-verify.main has cognitive complexity 169 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 88 (136 pts), boolean chains 17, loops 5 (11 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts), ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 56). 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.
LevelProcessor.setLevels (cognitive 76) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/LevelProcessor.java:45— LevelProcessor.setLevels has cognitive complexity 76 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (64 pts), loops 4 (11 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 50). 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.
ListProcessor.checkNeighborLists (cognitive 61) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java:498— ListProcessor.checkNeighborLists has cognitive complexity 61 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (53 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 40). 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.
DoclingSchemaTransformer.transformTable (cognitive 56) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/DoclingSchemaTransformer.java:444— DoclingSchemaTransformer.transformTable has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (19 pts), ternaries 6 (18 pts), loops 7 (14 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 28). 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.
HybridDocumentProcessor.processDocument (cognitive 56) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:217— HybridDocumentProcessor.processDocument has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (40 pts), loops 5 (11 pts), boolean chains 3, error handling 2 (nesting depth added 27). 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.
AutoTaggingProcessor.mergeAdjacentTextShows (cognitive 50) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:1331— AutoTaggingProcessor.mergeAdjacentTextShows has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (25 pts), loops 9 (18 pts), ternaries 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 27). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
HybridDocumentProcessor.processBackendPath (cognitive 45) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:616— HybridDocumentProcessor.processBackendPath has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (23 pts), loops 7 (17 pts), error handling 2 (3 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 25). 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.
TextDecorationProcessor.processStrikethroughAndUnderlinedText (cognitive 43) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TextDecorationProcessor.java:59— TextDecorationProcessor.processStrikethroughAndUnderlinedText has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (27 pts), loops 6 (11 pts), boolean chains 4, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 21). 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.
ContentSanitizer.applyReplacementsToChunks (cognitive 43) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/utils/ContentSanitizer.java:133— ContentSanitizer.applyReplacementsToChunks has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (34 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 24). 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.
HybridDocumentProcessor.enrichBackendResults (cognitive 41) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:843— HybridDocumentProcessor.enrichBackendResults has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (35 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 27). 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.
hybrid_server.main (cognitive 39) python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:1599— hybrid_server.main has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (26 pts), ternaries 6, boolean chains 5, error handling 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.
ci-verify.verify_sanitize_rules_file (cognitive 37) verification/ci-verify.py:1001— ci-verify.verify_sanitize_rules_file has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (22 pts), boolean chains 7, loops 2 (4 pts), ternaries 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
TableBorderProcessor.addContentToTableBorder (cognitive 36) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TableBorderProcessor.java:124— TableBorderProcessor.addContentToTableBorder has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (24 pts), loops 2 (8 pts), boolean chains 4 (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.
CLIOptions.applyHybridOptions (cognitive 34) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/api/cli/CLIOptions.java:657— CLIOptions.applyHybridOptions has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (22 pts), boolean chains 5, error handling 2 (5 pts), ternaries 1 (2 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.
server.convert_pdf (cognitive 34) python/opendataloader-pdf-mcp/src/opendataloader_pdf_mcp/server.py:15— server.convert_pdf has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 29 (33 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.
ci-verify.verify_input_validation (cognitive 34) verification/ci-verify.py:613— ci-verify.verify_input_validation has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (28 pts), boolean chains 6 (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.
TableBorderProcessor.processTableBorders (cognitive 33) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TableBorderProcessor.java:54— TableBorderProcessor.processTableBorders has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (26 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 3 (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.
PDFStreamWriter.write (cognitive 32) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/PDFStreamWriter.java:33— PDFStreamWriter.write has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (21 pts), loops 4 (10 pts), boolean chains 1 (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.
DocumentProcessor.collectMetadata (cognitive 31) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java:593— DocumentProcessor.collectMetadata has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (15 pts), loops 6 (15 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.
DocumentProcessor.processDocument (cognitive 30) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java:360— DocumentProcessor.processDocument has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (20 pts), loops 4 (6 pts), error handling 2, boolean chains 1, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 7). 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.
TaggedDocumentProcessor.processTable (cognitive 30) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TaggedDocumentProcessor.java:262— TaggedDocumentProcessor.processTable has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (14 pts), loops 6 (14 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ListProcessor.processLists (cognitive 29) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java:105— ListProcessor.processLists has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 6 (12 pts), if/else 4 (11 pts), ternaries 2 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
SerializerUtil.writeMetadataIfPresent (cognitive 28) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/SerializerUtil.java:51— SerializerUtil.writeMetadataIfPresent has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (26 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
AutoTaggingProcessor.createListStructElem (cognitive 28) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:1005— AutoTaggingProcessor.createListStructElem has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (23 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
CaptionProcessor.processCaptions (cognitive 28) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/CaptionProcessor.java:49— CaptionProcessor.processCaptions has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (21 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 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.
PDFWriter.drawTableCells (cognitive 27) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/pdf/PDFWriter.java:114— PDFWriter.drawTableCells has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 5 (13 pts), if/else 3 (9 pts), ternaries 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ListProcessor.addContentToListItem (cognitive 27) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java:306— ListProcessor.addContentToListItem has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (23 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ImagesUtils.writeFromContents (cognitive 27) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/utils/ImagesUtils.java:83— ImagesUtils.writeFromContents has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 6 (17 pts), if/else 6 (9 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 14). 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.
HybridDocumentProcessor.enrichTextStreamInfosRecursive (cognitive 26) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:992— HybridDocumentProcessor.enrichTextStreamInfosRecursive has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 5 (15 pts), if/else 5 (10 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
TextLineProcessor.processTextLines (cognitive 26) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TextLineProcessor.java:43— TextLineProcessor.processTextLines has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (22 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2 (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.
TriageProcessor.countAlignedLineGroups (cognitive 25) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/TriageProcessor.java:1081— TriageProcessor.countAlignedLineGroups has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), loops 4 (7 pts) (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.
HeaderFooterProcessor.getNumberOfHeaderOrFooterContentsForEachPage (cognitive 25) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HeaderFooterProcessor.java:156— HeaderFooterProcessor.getNumberOfHeaderOrFooterContentsForEachPage has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), loops 4 (6 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (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.
pr-reminders.plan (cognitive 25) scripts/pr-reminders.py:218— pr-reminders.plan has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (17 pts), boolean chains 7, 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.
AutoTaggingProcessor.addTableRow (cognitive 23) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:1108— AutoTaggingProcessor.addTableRow has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (16 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (3 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
AutoTaggingProcessor.collectHeadings (cognitive 23) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:459— AutoTaggingProcessor.collectHeadings has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), loops 3 (9 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.
CLIOptions.applyAllTo (cognitive 22) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/api/cli/CLIOptions.java:330— CLIOptions.applyAllTo has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (19 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 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.
ChunksWriter.getArguments (cognitive 22) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/autotagging/ChunksWriter.java:281— ChunksWriter.getArguments has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (12 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), ternaries 1 (3 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.
LevelInfo.areSameLevelsInfos (cognitive 22) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/utils/levels/LevelInfo.java:36— LevelInfo.areSameLevelsInfos has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (15 pts), boolean chains 6, ternaries 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.
runner.run_jar (cognitive 22) python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/runner.py:31— runner.run_jar has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (19 pts), error handling 2, 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.
ChunksWriter.processString (cognitive 21) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/autotagging/ChunksWriter.java:313— ChunksWriter.processString has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1, error handling 1, loops 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.
HtmlGenerator.writeTable (cognitive 21) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:374— HtmlGenerator.writeTable has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (12 pts), loops 3 (8 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.
XYCutPlusPlusSorter.findBestVerticalCutWithProjection (cognitive 21) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/readingorder/XYCutPlusPlusSorter.java:406— XYCutPlusPlusSorter.findBestVerticalCutWithProjection has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (16 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 11). 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.
DocumentProcessor.setIDsInComplexObject (cognitive 21) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java:994— DocumentProcessor.setIDsInComplexObject has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), loops 4 (9 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.
HeadingProcessor.processHeadings (cognitive 21) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HeadingProcessor.java:53— HeadingProcessor.processHeadings has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), ternaries 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 3, 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.
ListProcessor.processListItem (cognitive 21) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java:191— ListProcessor.processListItem has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), boolean chains 4, error handling 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
TaggedDocumentProcessor.setBoundingBoxesForTableRowsAndTableCells (cognitive 21) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TaggedDocumentProcessor.java:412— TaggedDocumentProcessor.setBoundingBoxesForTableRowsAndTableCells has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (11 pts), loops 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 2, ternaries 1 (2 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.
verify-json.walk (cognitive 21) skills/odl-pdf/scripts/verify-json.py:56— verify-json.walk has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (13 pts), loops 3 (7 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.
ListProcessor.calculateList (cognitive 20) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java:264— ListProcessor.calculateList has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), ternaries 2 (4 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.
ParagraphProcessor.areLinesOfParagraphsWithLeftAlignments (cognitive 20) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:201— ParagraphProcessor.areLinesOfParagraphsWithLeftAlignments has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (19 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.
hybrid_server._check_ocr_engine_available (cognitive 20) python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:846— hybrid_server._check_ocr_engine_available has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (20 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
CLIOptions.applyImageOptions (cognitive 19) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/api/cli/CLIOptions.java:428— CLIOptions.applyImageOptions has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 3, error handling 1 (2 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.
AbstractTableProcessor.addTablesToTableCollection (cognitive 19) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AbstractTableProcessor.java:71— AbstractTableProcessor.addTablesToTableCollection has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (10 pts), loops 3 (9 pts) (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.
AutoTaggingProcessor.processTextNode (cognitive 19) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:1191— AutoTaggingProcessor.processTextNode has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (11 pts), loops 3 (6 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.
PDFWriter.getContents (cognitive 18) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/pdf/PDFWriter.java:218— PDFWriter.getContents has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 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.
ci-verify.verify_sanitization_rules (cognitive 18) verification/ci-verify.py:860— ci-verify.verify_sanitization_rules has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (9 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 2 (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.
AutoTaggingProcessor.updatePages (cognitive 17) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:132— AutoTaggingProcessor.updatePages has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
DocumentProcessor.generateOutputs (cognitive 17) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java:729— DocumentProcessor.generateOutputs has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (14 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
ci-verify.assert_content (cognitive 17) verification/ci-verify.py:241— ci-verify.assert_content has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (9 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 2, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 3). 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.
TriageProcessor.extractSignals (cognitive 16) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/TriageProcessor.java:779— TriageProcessor.extractSignals has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (9 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 2, error handling 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Duplicate intent with divergent signatures · ×1
Duplicate intent with divergent signatures: The library exposes two distinct entry points for PDF conversion ('convert' vs 'run') in both Python and Node.js. In Python, `convert_generated.convert` accepts a list of inputs and returns None (side-effect based), while `wrapper.run` accepts a single string input. In Node.js, `index.convert` accepts string|string[] and returns a Promise<string>, while `index.run` accepts a single string and returns a Promise<string>. The distinction between 'convert' and 'run' is semantically unclear, and the input handling (single vs list) is inconsistent across the parallel APIs. — Unify into a single primary conversion method (e.g., `convert`). Standardize input to accept a single path or an array of paths consistently across all language bindings. Ensure return types are consistent (e.g., always return output paths or a result object, rather than mixing void/None with string returns). (signatures: python...convert_generated.convert(input_path: Union[str, List[str]], ...) | python...wrapper.run(input_path: str, ...) | node...index.convert(inputPaths: string | string[], ...) | node...index.run(inputPath: string, ...))
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Inconsistent parameter naming and typing for character replacement · ×1
Inconsistent parameter naming and typing for character replacement: Python uses `replace_invalid_chars` (snake_case, Optional[str]), while Node.js uses `replaceInvalidChars` (camelCase, required string in both options types). The Python signature suggests it might be optional or a single character, whereas Node.js requires a string, implying different default behaviors or validation rules. — Align on a single naming convention (snake_case for Python, camelCase for Node is standard, but the type safety differs). Ensure the Python parameter is typed consistently with the Node.js requirement (e.g., if it's a replacement character, use `Optional[str]` but document the default; if it's a regex or string, match the Node signature). Consider if `replaceInvalidChars` should be a boolean flag with a fixed replacement char, or keep the string but ensure optionality matches. (signatures: python...wrapper.run(..., replace_invalid_chars: Optional[str], ...) | node...ConvertOptions.replaceInvalidChars: string | node...RunOptions.replaceInvalidChars: string)
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Fragmented OCR/Hybrid configuration · ×1
Fragmented OCR/Hybrid configuration: Python exposes detailed OCR engine parameters (`ocr_engine`, `psm`, `ocr_lang`, `enrich_formula`) in `create_converter` and `create_app`, while the Node.js API abstracts this into a single `hybridUrl` string in `ConvertOptions`. This makes the Node.js API less flexible and harder to configure precisely compared to the Python API, creating a capability gap. — Either expose the detailed OCR parameters in the Node.js `ConvertOptions` to match Python's granularity, or abstract the Python API to use a `hybridUrl` or `hybridConfig` object if the detailed parameters are not intended for public use. Currently, the APIs are not feature-parity. (signatures: python...hybrid_server.create_converter(..., ocr_lang: list[str] | None, ...) | python...hybrid_server.create_app(..., ocr_lang: list[str] | None, ...) | node...ConvertOptions.hybridUrl: string)
MethodTooLong: HybridDocumentProcessor.processDocument java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:217— MethodTooLong — processDocument runs 112 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 12 over it, 1.12× 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.
Change coupling: DoclingFastServerClient.java ↔ HybridDocumentProcessor.java java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/DoclingFastServerClient.java:1— `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/DoclingFastServerClient.java` and `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java` change together 62% of the time (8 of the 13 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `5c84435d` fix(hybrid): activate --hybrid-fallback on server-absent path (PDFDLO…; `fe75b5ac` feat(profiling): add per-step pipeline timings and extraction/remedia…; `c28f9425` fix: address code review feedback for health check — run `git show` on any of them.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:74— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:74-95 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:97-115 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:132-157 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:159-178 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:245-264 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:292-312 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:364-382 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:384-403 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:405-422 — 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 (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/pdf/PDFWriter.java:114— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/pdf/PDFWriter.java:114-142 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:459-487 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/CaptionProcessor.java:107-117 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:993-1024 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/LevelProcessor.java:136-146 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java:483-496 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TableBorderProcessor.java:176-186 — These 7 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 7 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 7 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:226— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:226-258 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:265-299 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java:201-232 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java:239-266 — 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.
Duplicated block (16–19 lines × 2) REDACTED:49— REDACTED:49-67 | REDACTED:100-115 — 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 `REDACTED:49` 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 (18–19 lines × 2) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:167— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:167-184 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java:147-165 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:167` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 2) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/entities/EnrichedImageChunk.java:88— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/entities/EnrichedImageChunk.java:88-102 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/entities/SemanticPicture.java:106-117 — 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. 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/entities/EnrichedImageChunk.java:103` calls `replaceAll` and `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/entities/SemanticPicture.java:118` 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 (3–15 lines × 3) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:1042— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:1042-1056 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:1137-1148 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:1187-1189 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:1042` 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.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/DoclingSchemaTransformer.java:269— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/DoclingSchemaTransformer.java:269-282 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/DoclingSchemaTransformer.java:376-389 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/DoclingSchemaTransformer.java:446-459 — 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 (9–11 lines × 2) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:311— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:311-321 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:339-347 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:231— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:231-239 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:270-278 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java:206-214 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java:244-252 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:231` 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) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/LevelProcessor.java:57— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/LevelProcessor.java:57-64 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/LevelProcessor.java:69-76 — 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/LevelProcessor.java:57` 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 × 9) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:75— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:75-81 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:98-104 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:133-139 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:160-166 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:246-252 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:293-299 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:365-371 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:385-391 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:406-412 — all 9 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 `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ParagraphProcessor.java:75` 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 × 7) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/pdf/PDFWriter.java:121— java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/pdf/PDFWriter.java:121-125 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:476-480 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/CaptionProcessor.java:108-112 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:1003-1007 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/LevelProcessor.java:137-141 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.java:484-488 | java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TableBorderProcessor.java:177-181 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 7 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 7 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/pdf/PDFWriter.java:121` 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, `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/AutoTaggingProcessor.java:473` calls `isTextBlock`, `checkKids`, `getCell` and `java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java:1002` 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 (28–32 lines × 2) verification/ci-verify.py:1562— verification/ci-verify.py:1562-1589 | verification/ci-verify.py:1673-1704 — 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 (24–25 lines × 2) verification/ci-verify.py:776— verification/ci-verify.py:776-800 | verification/ci-verify.py:801-824 — 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 (21–25 lines × 2) verification/ci-verify.py:1332— verification/ci-verify.py:1332-1356 | verification/ci-verify.py:1418-1438 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `verification/ci-verify.py:1416` calls `record` and `verification/ci-verify.py:1330` 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 (19–23 lines × 4) verification/ci-verify.py:1334— verification/ci-verify.py:1334-1356 | verification/ci-verify.py:1420-1438 | verification/ci-verify.py:1561-1579 | verification/ci-verify.py:1672-1692 — 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 (18–22 lines × 2) python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:1289— python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:1289-1306 | python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:1511-1532 — 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 `python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:1289` 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 (16–20 lines × 3) verification/ci-verify.py:1332— verification/ci-verify.py:1332-1351 | verification/ci-verify.py:1418-1433 | verification/ci-verify.py:1637-1655 — 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, `verification/ci-verify.py:1416` calls `record` and `verification/ci-verify.py:1330` 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 (17 lines × 2) verification/ci-verify.py:1558— verification/ci-verify.py:1558-1574 | verification/ci-verify.py:1654-1670 — 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 `verification/ci-verify.py:1654` 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 (11–15 lines × 2) verification/ci-verify.py:774— verification/ci-verify.py:774-788 | verification/ci-verify.py:1226-1236 — 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 `verification/ci-verify.py:774` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) verification/ci-verify.py:1146— verification/ci-verify.py:1146-1154 | verification/ci-verify.py:1177-1186 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) verification/ci-verify.py:1166— verification/ci-verify.py:1166-1174 | verification/ci-verify.py:1194-1202 | verification/ci-verify.py:1208-1216 — 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 (8–9 lines × 2) verification/ci-verify.py:728— verification/ci-verify.py:728-735 | verification/ci-verify.py:738-746 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Off the main sequence: opendataloader-pdf-core — opendataloader-pdf-core: abstractness 0.03, instability 0.00, distance 0.98 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Low cohesion: ElementMetadata (LCOM4 12) java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/ElementMetadata.java:26— ElementMetadata's methods fall into 12 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 12 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.
Coverage not measured — JavaScript/TypeScript suite — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — node/opendataloader-pdf/ runs vitest but declares no coverage provider, so the suite can run and still produce no lcov — add `@vitest/coverage-v8` (or `@vitest/coverage-istanbul`) as a devDependency. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
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.
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document· Recursive walk over a caller-supplied document has no depth cap · ×1
Recursive walk over a caller-supplied document has no depth cap python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:806— `sanitize_unicode` is public and takes `data: Any` from its caller, and it calls itself at line 806 (`sanitize_unicode`) with a piece of `data` (and at line 808) — and nowhere in `sanitize_unicode` is there a depth parameter, a descent counter, or any other cap. The walk therefore spends one stack frame per LEVEL of the value it is handed, so the nesting of the caller's document — not this code — decides how deep the stack goes. Python's parsers accept far more nesting than its stack allows: `json.loads` turns 3,000 bytes of brackets into 1,500 levels and `xml.etree.ElementTree` parses tens of thousands, while a walk like this one raises `RecursionError` once it passes the interpreter's default limit of 1,000 frames. Wherever that exception lands, the work fails: a request errors, and outside any `try` the worker or the program exits with it. Raising `sys.setrecursionlimit` only moves the number the document has to beat. Thread a depth argument through `sanitize_unicode` and reject the value past a fixed maximum, or rewrite the descent with an explicit stack.
Duplicated predicate java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ClusterTableProcessor.java:87— `cell.getColNumber() == colNumber && cell.getRowNumber() == rowNumber` appears character-identically in 2 files — java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ClusterTableProcessor.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TaggedDocumentProcessor.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 java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/TableRowSerializer.java:44— `cell.getColNumber() == columnNumber && cell.getRowNumber() == row.getRowNumber()` appears character-identically in 3 files — java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/serializers/TableRowSerializer.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/utils/ContentSanitizer.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/utils/ImagesUtils.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 java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:384— `cell.getRowNumber() == rowNumber && cell.getColNumber() == colNumber` appears character-identically in 6 files — java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownHTMLGenerator.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/pdf/PDFWriter.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 java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/CaptionProcessor.java:80— `content instanceof TableBorder && !((TableBorder) content).isTextBlock()` appears character-identically in 2 files — java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/CaptionProcessor.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TableBorderProcessor.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 java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/entities/EnrichedImageChunk.java:75— `description != null && !description.isEmpty()` appears character-identically in 3 files — java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/entities/EnrichedImageChunk.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/entities/SemanticPicture.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/DoclingSchemaTransformer.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 java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:247— `image instanceof EnrichedImageChunk && ((EnrichedImageChunk) image).hasDescription()` appears character-identically in 2 files — java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.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 java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/pdf/PDFWriter.java:238— `node.getSemanticType() == SemanticType.HEADER || node.getSemanticType() == SemanticType.FOOTER` appears character-identically in 2 files — java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/pdf/PDFWriter.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HeaderFooterProcessor.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 java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/JsonWriter.java:149— `object != null && object.getType() == COSObjType.COS_DICT` appears character-identically in 2 files — java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/json/JsonWriter.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.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 java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java:649— `pagesToProcess == null || pagesToProcess.contains(pageNumber)` appears character-identically in 3 files — java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/HybridDocumentProcessor.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TaggedDocumentProcessor.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 java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java:125— `selectedPageNumbers.isEmpty() || selectedPageNumbers.contains(pageNumber + 1)` appears character-identically in 2 files — java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/html/HtmlGenerator.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/markdown/MarkdownGenerator.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 java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/CaptionProcessor.java:112— `tableBorderCell.getRowNumber() == rowNumber && tableBorderCell.getColNumber() == colNumber` appears character-identically in 5 files — java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/CaptionProcessor.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessor.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/LevelProcessor.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.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 java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ClusterTableProcessor.java:58— `textChunk.isWhiteSpaceChunk() || textChunk.isEmpty()` appears character-identically in 3 files — java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ClusterTableProcessor.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TextDecorationProcessor.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/TextLineProcessor.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 java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/CaptionProcessor.java:63— `textNode.isSpaceNode() || textNode.isEmpty()` appears character-identically in 2 files — java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/CaptionProcessor.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ListProcessor.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.
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging build-scripts/fetch_shaded_jar.py:77— `info` at line 77 is handed an f-string as its message, so the logger receives one finished string — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, every occurrence reads as a different message, and the string is built even when the record is filtered out. Pass the values beside a constant message instead: `logger.info("order %s moved to %s", order_id, status)` with the standard library's `logging`, which keeps the message and its arguments apart on the record, or `log.info("order moved", order_id=order_id, status=status)` with structlog.
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:1148— `info` at line 1148 is handed an f-string as its message, so the logger receives one finished string — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, every occurrence reads as a different message, and the string is built even when the record is filtered out. Pass the values beside a constant message instead: `logger.info("order %s moved to %s", order_id, status)` with the standard library's `logging`, which keeps the message and its arguments apart on the record, or `log.info("order moved", order_id=order_id, status=status)` with structlog.
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:1484— `info` at line 1484 is handed an f-string as its message, so the logger receives one finished string — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, every occurrence reads as a different message, and the string is built even when the record is filtered out. Pass the values beside a constant message instead: `logger.info("order %s moved to %s", order_id, status)` with the standard library's `logging`, which keeps the message and its arguments apart on the record, or `log.info("order moved", order_id=order_id, status=status)` with structlog.
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging python/opendataloader-pdf/src/opendataloader_pdf/hybrid_server.py:1498— `info` at line 1498 is handed an f-string as its message, so the logger receives one finished string — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, every occurrence reads as a different message, and the string is built even when the record is filtered out. Pass the values beside a constant message instead: `logger.info("order %s moved to %s", order_id, status)` with the standard library's `logging`, which keeps the message and its arguments apart on the record, or `log.info("order moved", order_id=order_id, status=status)` with structlog.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 15 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/TriageProcessor.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/DoclingSchemaTransformer.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/readingorder/XYCutPlusPlusSorter.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/HybridClient.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/TriageLogger.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/ElementMetadata.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/hybrid/HybridClientFactory.java, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/ExtractionResult.java (+7 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D16 · Bus Factor· Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1
Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 3 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (18 single-owned of 78 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; 78 of the 121 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #2 (1 file(s)), anonymized user #3 (1 file(s)), anonymized user #4 (1 file(s)) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above. The files folded here: skills/odl-pdf/scripts/quick-eval.py, python/opendataloader-pdf-mcp/src/opendataloader_pdf_mcp/server.py, java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/main/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/PDFStreamWriter.java.
No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 6 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 6.7/10. The most over is `java/opendataloader-pdf-core` (20102 LoC, 113 module-visible types across 17 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.
D28 · Secrets (history)· Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1
Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 1 of 78 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 78 of the 121 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: python/opendataloader-pdf-mcp/src/opendataloader_pdf_mcp/server.py. 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.
Orphaned file python/opendataloader-pdf-mcp/src/opendataloader_pdf_mcp/server.py:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Disabled test java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/issues/Issue408FileLockTest.java:144— A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something.
No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
M2 · Architecture documentation· No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
P10 · Library API & versioning· Large public API surface · ×1
Large public API surface — 114/129 types (88%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.
Logging is not universal — Only 4/6 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `node/opendataloader-pdf`, `python/opendataloader-pdf-mcp`.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (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 34834 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.
No release approval gate — The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.
Silent fallback default in catch node/opendataloader-pdf/src/index.ts:42— `tempDirOptions` swallows every exception into `return []` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the failure or let it raise. If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment on the handler or in the docstring, and the row stops firing.
Skipped (documented): noHandleOnTheInputFileAfterProcessing java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/issues/Issue408FileLockTest.java:108— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a JUnit assumption
Skipped (documented): noHandleOnTheInputFileForPdfWithImages java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/issues/Issue408FileLockTest.java:148— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: switched off by @Disabled
Skipped (documented): openFileCountDoesNotGrowOverRepeatedProcessing java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/issues/Issue408FileLockTest.java:129— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a JUnit assumption
Skipped (documented): localExtractionPrunesArtifactsAndKeepsLaterProcessingWorking java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessorArtifactPruneTest.java:55— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a JUnit assumption
Skipped (documented): preprocessingRejectsUnwritableTempDirWithTypedException java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/DocumentProcessorTempDirTest.java:64— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a JUnit assumption
Skipped (documented): noSuchWarningWhenOnlyStructTree java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/StructTreeHybridPrecedenceTest.java:93— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a JUnit assumption
Skipped (documented): warnsWhenStructTreeSuppressesHybridOnTaggedPdf java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/processors/StructTreeHybridPrecedenceTest.java:73— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a JUnit assumption
Skipped (documented): testPagesOptionTaggedPdfAllPages java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/PagesOptionIntegrationTest.java:301— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a JUnit assumption
Skipped (documented): testPagesOptionTaggedPdfMultiplePages java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/PagesOptionIntegrationTest.java:278— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a JUnit assumption
Skipped (documented): testPagesOptionTaggedPdfSinglePage java/opendataloader-pdf-core/src/test/java/org/opendataloader/pdf/PagesOptionIntegrationTest.java:256— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a JUnit assumption
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.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
Run 01a16c2b-a9d7-7c1f-80c9-30926b430d50 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 50 · Warnings: 180 · Recommendations: 38 · Info: 10 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 24-10-2026 @ 04:29 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.