Public report — microduck, published 29 Sep 2026.
Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches,
dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase surveyMeasured under the Code Assurance Index · rubric rubric-2026.09.17 (frozen) · verify this surveyFiledcd_bb64e7ac162c431995fc0e2d84f60fe6
Filed 29 September 2026, 10:19 UTC
Public
Large · 104,526 LoC · 23 projects · rebuild ~1.0 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (57%)
Findings by grade
68 critical349 serious14 minor47 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
29 September 2026, 10:14 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify,
approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The
standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said
here so the number is checked rather than believed.
Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸
406findings with an exact file:lineof 431 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
51/122dimensions across the health lenses104526 LoC · 23 projects — wide & deep
The platform is an adequate but risky asset with an overall health score of 64%. While the core logic is sound, the system carries significant operational exposure that threatens delivery speed and reliability. This standing means the business can continue operating, but at a higher cost and with greater fragility than necessary.
The system is large, comprising over 100,000 lines of production code, with a rebuild effort estimated at roughly one person-year or €140,000. This represents substantial capital tied up in the codebase. The composition is entirely custom logic with no boilerplate, indicating a unique business value that is expensive to replace. The cost of inaction is high, as technical debt in this volume compounds quickly, draining engineering capacity that could otherwise drive new features.
The primary risk lies in operational readiness, which scores only 57%. For a system of this size, weak readiness means the team lacks confidence in disaster recovery and change management. Without tested restore procedures and clear recovery time objectives, a failure could lead to prolonged outages and significant revenue loss. This is the area where remediation buys the most protection, turning a fragile system into a reliable one.
Secondly, the codebase imposes a velocity tax on every change. Quality signals suggest that modifications in weaker areas cost 3–7% more effort than in clean code. This drag is not a one-time cost but an annual bill that grows with the codebase. The highest-leverage fix is enabling automated dependency management. This single action pays for itself within months by preventing security drift and reducing maintenance overhead, offering immediate relief to the team’s capacity.
Strengths include excellent event sourcing implementation and strong code health in core modules, showing the team can write high-quality logic. However, the lack of measured domain modeling and event-driven architecture data means the picture is partial. Focus first on enabling dependency automation and documenting disaster recovery procedures. These steps address the highest risks with the lowest effort, stabilizing the platform for future growth.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
D22 · Duplicate method signature with different parameter names (one uses `_lines`/`_boot`, the other uses `lines`/`boot`). This suggests an accidental overload or copy-paste error in the API definition.
D22 · Two methods perform the same core operation (pairing a link) but differ only in how the MTU is passed (owned `usize` vs shared `AtomicUsize`). This creates unnecessary cognitive load and API surface duplication.
D22 · Naming inconsistency in the `configd.pad` module. `Pads.pair` is a method on the struct, while `pad.pair_timeout` appears to be a free function or module-level helper. The naming convention `pair_timeout` suggests it returns a timeout, but it's unclear if it's a configuration helper or a distinct operation compared to `Pads.pair`.
D22 · While technically distinct types, the `infer` method signature is identical across different backend implementations (`onnx` vs `rknn`). If these are meant to be interchangeable via a trait, the trait should be exposed. If not, the duplication is acceptable but highlights a potential lack of abstraction.
A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.
0.9× (at 64% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape
Large · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)
This codebase represents roughly ~1.0 person-years of build effort (about ~€140,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 57% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.1) — vertical slice × a 0.9× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
The top-ranked fix costs roughly 3–10 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 66.6–399.4 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~880,270 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 1–2 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 3–7% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.
Evidence: D15 churn: 217,053 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~880,270/year · D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 6.8/10 ⇒ a 3–7% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Medium effort ⇒ about 3–10 engineer-day(s)
→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 2 months.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Large asset (~1.0 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 57%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 6.8/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 3–7% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Evidence: D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 6.8/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured
→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
157 modules, 245 dependencies. 2 dependency cycles across 9 modules, marked above the diagonal.
Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 117 more are not drawn.
Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
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
A03:2021 — Injection
62
High / Critical
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration
16
High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components
4
High / Critical
Roadmap
First, enable automated dependency review and secret scanning to strengthen security and performance baselines. Next, document recovery objectives and test restore procedures to ensure true disaster readiness, while maintaining a changelog to track release changes. Finally, extend structured logging to all runnable modules for better production diagnosability and organize architecture decision records for easier access.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
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 — 68
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 — 349
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 — 14
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 47
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. 45 of 51 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 6 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 — 51 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, 406 of 431 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT READ here — but this repository measures it: a coverage step in CI (`cargo llvm-cov`) shows that coverage is collected and tracked in your own CI. The built-in collector has no runner for this ecosystem (.rs), so the analyzer could not read the number — a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not an unmeasured repo. Not scored. To have the real number read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.rs) and this repository declares a Cargo test suite (repository root, 129 test files), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
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 — 48 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, which could not be reached on this run, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX2 Stateful singletons — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX7 Slice cohesion — 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. 16 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 56.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P10 Library API & versioning — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads NuGet packaging and C# public API only, and no .NET project was loaded for this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
PF1 Benchmark discipline — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X10 Duplicated predicate — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
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.
D7 Architectural Integrity: Layering is checked against detected/declared rules — an architecture whose boundaries live in convention or in code review, not in a rule a scanner can read, is not enforced here.
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.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
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 REDACTED, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (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.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
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 (6): D19, D20, D21, D22, D26, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
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.
38 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was robotd::control_loop at 185. A further 9 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 Call::parse at 74 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 4 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: duck-ipc-proto/src/lib.rs (Call::parse at 74), btd/src/route.rs (btd::route::permits at 54), mediad/src/route.rs (mediad::route::permits at 37), updater/src/lib.rs (Error::code at 19). 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.
+ 17 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 9 robotctl finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with main.rs (5), configure.rs (2), monitor.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 robotd finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with main.rs (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 duckctl finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with main.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
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.
+ 30 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 13 robotctl finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with main.rs (7), configure.rs (2), monitor.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 warning-level).
Resolve the 8 mediad finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with pipeline.rs (2), main.rs, exposure.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 robotd finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with main.rs (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 19 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with main.rs (12), pipeline.rs (2), configure.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 warning-level).
Resolve the 14 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with main.rs (4), lib.rs (2), monitor.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with ipc.rs, engine.rs, control.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 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.
83 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 4 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.
+ 36 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 9 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with main.rs (5), upstream.rs (2), engine.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 8 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with journal.rs (2), tap.rs, soc.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with main.rs (3), bluez.rs, verify.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling7.6 / 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.
23 production modules (Cargo+npm), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 7 module(s) off the main sequence.
Off the main sequence: duck-ble · ×7
What to do
Resolve the 7 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 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 2 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with intents.rs, io.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the code respects its intended layering / architecture rules.
Method: Enforcement rung (Prevented/Verified/Documented) per checkable ADR via Roslyn, plus dependency cycles via the engine shared with D5/AX3. Deterministic, exact.
All 1 mechanizable ADR(s) are enforced: 1 by analyzers, 0 by tests. Dependency cycles not checked (no project-reference graph; where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there).
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d7_recommendation.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.
1547 test methods: 1353 unit, 194 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 1547 `#[test]` function(s) across 129 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 12 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
Resolve the 27 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with main.rs (9), lib.rs (2), route.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (27 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 Factor6.6 / 10Adequate✓ 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.
48 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is duckctl/src/main.rs. Counted over 143 of the 154 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 · ×2
What to do
Resolve the 2 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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.
0 deducted task-comment markers across 104526 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.
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.
This repository's documentation is clear and complete for its deployed directories (READMEs of deploy/robotd, deploy/dev-key, deploy/trusted_keys, docs/, pet-detect, spaces/*), with a strong root README covering the project overview, an OS-level deployment guide, and cross-referencing to architecture/design docs. The README files are well-structured with headings, an overview section, and usage examples (e.g., `export DUCK_TOKEN=github_pat_replace_with_your_token` in install-dev.md). This repository's documentation is excellent: every README and architecture/design document (totaling 10+34) is complete, well-organized, and clearly scoped to its directory or topic. The FAQ covers real use cases with concrete code examples; the policy manifest defines a two-axis schema and explains how policies are published and loaded; recurrent-policies.md dives into model contract, memory lifetime, and the API version that governs recurrent ONNX policies; app-path-design.md is a detailed hardware-software path with measured sections on every decision; and the Policy Channel design covers where policies come from, how they are tried/undone, and what 'reset' puts back. The only unshown section in any document is clipped by the scanner, so no section is flagged as missing. The project's documentation is comprehensive: a README for each directory (e.g. `docs/design/remote-access-design.md`), architecture and design documents, and XML-doc coverage across every module. The outline of each document exists within the visible text — no section is omitted from an outlined list — so any missing content must be flagged as such rather than assumed absent. All four categories are present: a clear overview (the draft `remote-access-design.md` states what the project is and its rendezvous shape), installation/build steps, usage examples, and contribution guidance; none of these gaps appear in the visible text.
Documentation: no project overviewREADME.md
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR QualityExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory
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.
4 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 434 exposed types.
Duplicate method signature with different parameter names (one uses `_lines`/`_boot`, the other uses `lines`/`boot`). This suggests an accidental overload or copy-paste error in the API definition.
Two methods perform the same core operation (pairing a link) but differ only in how the MTU is passed (owned `usize` vs shared `AtomicUsize`). This creates unnecessary cognitive load and API surface duplication.
Naming inconsistency in the `configd.pad` module. `Pads.pair` is a method on the struct, while `pad.pair_timeout` appears to be a free function or module-level helper. The naming convention `pair_timeout` suggests it returns a timeout, but it's unclear if it's a configuration helper or a distinct operation compared to `Pads.pair`.
While technically distinct types, the `infer` method signature is identical across different backend implementations (`onnx` vs `rknn`). If these are meant to be interchangeable via a trait, the trait should be exposed. If not, the duplication is acceptable but highlights a potential lack of abstraction.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Duplicate method signature with different parameter names (one uses… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Two methods perform the same core operation (pairing a link) but differ… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Naming inconsistency in the `configd.pad` module. `Pads.pair` is a… 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.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
62 finding(s): 0 critical, 58 high, 4 medium, 0 low. 28 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 10 file(s) — `deploy/audio/aic3x-dkms/tlv320aic3x.c`, `scripts/board-test.sh` (lines 130–555, lines 1157–1173), `scripts/dev-push.sh` (lines 38–559), `scripts/duck-sim` (lines 617–618), `REDACTED` (lines 199–554), … (+5 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 5 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 17 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (6), REDACTED (5), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (17 issue-level).
Resolve the 7 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 28 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 (28 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 1 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 Medium vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Medium advisory (unmaintained) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Resolve the 4 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 8 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (6), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 143 of the 154 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 2 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with route.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-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.
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 9 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.
AC2 · Forms & labels4.9 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.
Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. (×3) — mediad/webclient/index.html:299, mediad/webclient/index.html:304, mediad/webclient/index.html:356
What to do
Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.
Coverage: Population: the PARSED MARKUP documents (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx). The page-level checks — lang, title, single main landmark — fire ONCE PER FULL DOCUMENT (an <html> root) and never on a partial or component fragment, so a repo of fragments is assessed only on the per-element checks (heading order, table headers, iframe titles, meta-refresh, zoom). Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.
Coverage: Population: elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) that carry a role or an aria-* attribute; roles and token values are checked against the ARIA enums exhaustively within that set. An expression-valued (dynamic) role or aria-* value is skipped rather than guessed, and markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.
Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.
Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.
Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.
No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (an accessibility check that can read your UI — no component framework was detected and your pages are rendered by server-side templates, which neither the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins nor the HTML-template linters can parse; run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, or assert the accessibility invariants over that rendered HTML in the test suite you already have) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start by running that check over your rendered pages in CI. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 3 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
What to do
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add an accessibility check that can read your UI — no component framework was detected and your pages are rendered by server-side templates, which neither the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins nor the HTML-template linters can parse; run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, or assert the accessibility invariants over that rendered HTML in the test suite you already have, then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
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 the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether feature slices stay independent (no direct cross-slice references) — the discipline that makes vertical-slice architecture pay off.
Method: Roslyn scan (vertical-slice gated): feature slices resolved from namespaces (.Features.*, .Slices.*) or project names; cross-slice type references detected. Deterministic, traceable.
`Sighting` (slice 'btd') depends on `ChoraleBeacon` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — btd/src/chorale.rs:130
`FakeState` (slice 'configd') depends on `Pad` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — configd/src/pad.rs:205
`Policy` (slice 'duck_control') depends on `Net` from slice 'configd'. — duck-control/src/policy.rs:240
`RemoteIo` (slice 'duck_control') depends on `Link` from slice 'btd'. — duck-control/src/sim.rs:119
`OnAir` (slice 'duck_ether') depends on `ChoraleBeacon` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — duck-ether/src/main.rs:145
`LogEntry` (slice 'duck_ipc_proto') depends on `Outcome` from slice 'btd'. — duck-ipc-proto/src/lib.rs:3264
`NetScanResult` (slice 'duck_ipc_proto') depends on `Network` from slice 'duck_control'. — duck-ipc-proto/src/lib.rs:4027
`Cli` (slice 'duckctl') depends on `Command` from slice 'duck_control'. — duckctl/src/main.rs:854
`Tracker` (slice 'kinematics') depends on `Config` from slice 'configd'. — kinematics/src/hand.rs:109
`Settings` (slice 'mediad') depends on `CongestionControl` from slice 'robotd_params'. — mediad/src/pipeline.rs:180
`Published` (slice 'mediad') depends on `RemoteStatus` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — mediad/src/relay.rs:412
`Relay` (slice 'mediad') depends on `Client` from slice 'robotctl'. — mediad/src/relay.rs:475
`Hub` (slice 'mediad') depends on `Client` from slice 'robotctl'. — mediad/src/relay.rs:1232
`Live` (slice 'mediad') depends on `Config` from slice 'configd'. — mediad/src/stream.rs:363
`Pool` (slice 'mediad') depends on `Sockets` from slice 'btd'. — mediad/src/upstream.rs:86
`Imu` (slice 'pad_imu') depends on `PadImuDevice` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — pad-imu/src/lib.rs:68
`Tap` (slice 'padd') depends on `Shared` from slice 'mediad'. — padd/src/tap.rs:113
`Shared` (slice 'padd') depends on `Imu` from slice 'pad_imu'. — padd/src/tap.rs:118
`State` (slice 'padd') depends on `PadReport` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — padd/src/tap.rs:128
`Shot` (slice 'robotctl') depends on `MediaFrameHeader` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — robotctl/src/camera.rs:37
`Model` (slice 'robotctl') depends on `Body` from slice 'kinematics'. — robotctl/src/duck.rs:73
`ComponentReport` (slice 'robotctl') depends on `CheckAttempt` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — robotctl/src/main.rs:1461
`VersionReport` (slice 'robotctl') depends on `ServiceUnit` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — robotctl/src/main.rs:1614
`HealthReport` (slice 'robotctl') depends on `HealthResult` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — robotctl/src/main.rs:1632
`PadView` (slice 'robotctl') depends on `PadInputDevice` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — robotctl/src/monitor.rs:1046
`View` (slice 'robotctl') depends on `SubscribeResult` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — robotctl/src/monitor.rs:1357
`Peer` (slice 'robotd') depends on `ChoraleBeacon` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — robotd/src/chorale.rs:105
`Tick` (slice 'robotd') depends on `ChoraleAdvertise` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — robotd/src/chorale.rs:148
`Chorale` (slice 'robotd') depends on `Score` from slice 'sounds'. — robotd/src/chorale.rs:166
`SkillTuning` (slice 'robotd') depends on `SkillDef` from slice 'robotd_params'. — robotd/src/control.rs:82
`Controller` (slice 'robotd') depends on `Policy` from slice 'duck_control'. — robotd/src/control.rs:207
`Intents` (slice 'robotd') depends on `ChoraleHeard` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — robotd/src/intents.rs:137
`Snapshot` (slice 'robotd') depends on `Command` from slice 'duck_control'. — robotd/src/intents.rs:240
`Args` (slice 'robotd') depends on `Command` from slice 'duck_control'. — robotd/src/main.rs:225
`PendingSwap` (slice 'robotd') depends on `PolicyParams` from slice 'robotd_params'. — robotd/src/main.rs:1481
`Coast` (slice 'robotd') depends on `Sensors` from slice 'duck_control'. — robotd/src/main.rs:3335
`Sound` (slice 'robotd') depends on `Live` from slice 'mediad'. — robotd/src/sound.rs:174
`Note` (slice 'robotd') depends on `ThereminState` from slice 'duck_ipc_proto'. — robotd/src/theremin.rs:73
`Theremin` (slice 'robotd') depends on `Tracker` from slice 'kinematics'. — robotd/src/theremin.rs:84
`Params` (slice 'robotd_params') depends on `Control` from slice 'mediad'. — robotd-params/src/lib.rs:65
What to do
Keep slices independent: share cross-slice needs via an explicit contract/shared-kernel, not direct references between slices.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.
Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.
Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.
Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.
Other · Event Sourcing — Whether the recovery-replay fold is deterministic — state derived purely from each event's own fields, no clock/random/IO on the replay path.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan (event-sourcing gated): Apply/When folds checked for forbidden tokens (DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random, IO), stripped of comments/strings. Deterministic, hard fact per fold.
Other · Event Sourcing — Whether domain events stay immutable (private fields, set once) rather than carrying mutable state.
Method: Roslyn scan (event-sourcing gated): persisted events checked for public setters; immutability verified per property/field. Deterministic, hard fact.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 23 of 24 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.9 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.
2 ADR-shaped document(s) detected by content — `docs/design/updater-design.md`, `docs/project/ci-setup.md`. They are not under a conventional ADR folder (docs/adr/) and are not named NNNN-title.md, and this check found them by their decision signature rather than by where they live — so a reader who does not already know these paths has no route to them. Detected by content signature only: records kept outside the repository, or written without a Status/Decision/Consequences shape, are not visible to this check and are not counted here.
What to do
Move ADRs under docs/adr/ (or docs/adrs/) and name them NNNN-title.md so they're easy to find.
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.
Only 15/20 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `duckctl`, `robotctl`, `sounds`, `spaces/hello`, `xtask`.
What to do
Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry with tracing-opentelemetry) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your axum/actix router) for operability.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What to do
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P5 · DR & Backup4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.
Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.
What to do
Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).
Enable purge protection / soft-delete (and prevent_destroy on critical resources) so data stores can't be lost to an accidental or malicious delete.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
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) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
Do you agree with this assessment?
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
Statically assessed 10 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (18%; ≈20% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 45 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Not evidenced — 3 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.
Not included — 68 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 image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX2 Stateful singletons — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a vertical-slice architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release.
Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit:
https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~7666 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .rs suite was found but not re-run
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 48 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, which could not be reached on this run, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's 550 shipped crate(s) were read from its REDACTED, but crates.io could not be asked for the licence of 42 of them (HTTP 429 Unknown Error), and a licence verdict over part of a dependency graph is not a licence verdict. Nothing is asserted about this repository's licensing in either direction.
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — none of 2 ADRs are conformance-checkable — unverifiable.
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 19 value object(s); 1 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P10 Library API & versioning — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — 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 (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
PF2 Allocation hygiene — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
AC2 · Forms & labels· <select> without a programmatic label · ×2
<select> without a programmatic label mediad/webclient/index.html:299— This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<select> without a programmatic label mediad/webclient/index.html:304— This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: route.rs ↔ ipc.rs mediad/src/route.rs— `mediad/src/route.rs` (context mediad) and `updater/src/ipc.rs` (context updater) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 62% of the time (10 of the 16 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) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 10 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `f2bda509` `duckctl logs`: a daemon's last words, over the radio; `2b112cbf` head IMU: unambiguous head_imu.* naming + publish the sensor mount pose; `648d7d25` route imu.stream: over WebRTC (mediad), refused on BLE (btd) and upda… — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: route.rs ↔ ipc.rs btd/src/route.rs— `btd/src/route.rs` (context btd) and `updater/src/ipc.rs` (context updater) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 56% of the time (14 of the 25 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) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 14 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `f2bda509` `duckctl logs`: a daemon's last words, over the radio; `2b112cbf` head IMU: unambiguous head_imu.* naming + publish the sensor mount pose; `648d7d25` route imu.stream: over WebRTC (mediad), refused on BLE (btd) and upda… — run `git show` on any of them.
AC2 · Forms & labels· <input> without a programmatic label · ×1
<input> without a programmatic label mediad/webclient/index.html:356— This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
Hotspot: robotd/src/main.rs robotd/src/main.rs:1761— robotd/src/main.rs changed 95 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 185 in robotd::control_loop at line 1761. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 92 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- robotd/src/main.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: duck-ipc-proto/src/lib.rs duck-ipc-proto/src/lib.rs:1543— duck-ipc-proto/src/lib.rs changed 96 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 74 in Call::parse at line 1543. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 95 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- duck-ipc-proto/src/lib.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: robotctl/src/main.rs robotctl/src/main.rs:4925— robotctl/src/main.rs changed 104 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 30 in robotctl::run at line 4925. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 102 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- robotctl/src/main.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: duckctl/src/main.rs duckctl/src/main.rs:1362— duckctl/src/main.rs changed 44 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 61 in duckctl::run at line 1362. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- duckctl/src/main.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: padd/src/main.rs padd/src/main.rs:382— padd/src/main.rs changed 31 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 86 in padd::main at line 382. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- padd/src/main.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: btd/src/route.rs btd/src/route.rs:76— btd/src/route.rs changed 43 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 54 in btd::route::permits at line 76. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- btd/src/route.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: updater/src/ipc.rs updater/src/ipc.rs:521— updater/src/ipc.rs changed 41 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 43 in Server::dispatch at line 521. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- updater/src/ipc.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: mediad/src/main.rs mediad/src/main.rs:199— mediad/src/main.rs changed 38 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 34 in mediad::main at line 199. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- mediad/src/main.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: robotctl/src/configure.rs robotctl/src/configure.rs:357— robotctl/src/configure.rs changed 21 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 55 in robotctl::configure::run at line 357. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- robotctl/src/configure.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: robotctl/src/monitor.rs robotctl/src/monitor.rs:903— robotctl/src/monitor.rs changed 36 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 26 in robotctl::monitor::live at line 903. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- robotctl/src/monitor.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: updater/src/engine.rs updater/src/engine.rs:713— updater/src/engine.rs changed 48 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in Engine::apply_inner at line 713. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- updater/src/engine.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: mediad/src/route.rs mediad/src/route.rs:51— mediad/src/route.rs changed 19 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 37 in mediad::route::permits at line 51. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- mediad/src/route.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: xtask/src/main.rs xtask/src/main.rs:287— xtask/src/main.rs changed 41 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in xtask::package at line 287. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- xtask/src/main.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: robotd/src/control.rs robotd/src/control.rs:427— robotd/src/control.rs changed 11 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 39 in Controller::step at line 427. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- robotd/src/control.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: updater/src/main.rs updater/src/main.rs:313— updater/src/main.rs changed 18 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 21 in updater::install at line 313. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- updater/src/main.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: updater/src/lib.rs updater/src/lib.rs:258— updater/src/lib.rs changed 16 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 19 in Error::code at line 258. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- updater/src/lib.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: configd/src/main.rs configd/src/main.rs:419— configd/src/main.rs changed 12 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 23 in configd::dispatch at line 419. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- configd/src/main.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: mediad/src/relay.rs mediad/src/relay.rs:652— mediad/src/relay.rs changed 11 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in Relay::session at line 652. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- mediad/src/relay.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: configd/src/nm.rs configd/src/nm.rs:550— configd/src/nm.rs changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 21 in NetworkManager::connect at line 550. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- configd/src/nm.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: updater/src/config.rs updater/src/config.rs:402— updater/src/config.rs changed 10 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in Config::validate at line 402. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- updater/src/config.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: configd/src/bluez.rs configd/src/bluez.rs:853— configd/src/bluez.rs changed 10 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in BlueZ::pair at line 853. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- configd/src/bluez.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: spaces/policy-playground/web/src/main.ts spaces/policy-playground/web/src/main.ts:466— spaces/policy-playground/web/src/main.ts changed 9 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in main.card at line 466. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- spaces/policy-playground/web/src/main.ts`: 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: robotd/src/chorale.rs robotd/src/chorale.rs:264— robotd/src/chorale.rs changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in Chorale::heard at line 264. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- robotd/src/chorale.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: robotctl/src/duck.rs robotctl/src/duck.rs:403— robotctl/src/duck.rs changed 6 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in DuckView::draw at line 403. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- robotctl/src/duck.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: updater/src/source/http.rs updater/src/source/http.rs:203— updater/src/source/http.rs changed 4 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in updater::source::http::attempt_download at line 203. 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 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:01:03 +02:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:01:03 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- updater/src/source/http.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
FunctionTooLong: robotd::control_loop robotd/src/main.rs:1761— FunctionTooLong — robotd::control_loop runs 817 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 717 over it, 8.17× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: padd::main padd/src/main.rs:382— FunctionTooLong — padd::main runs 320 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 220 over it, 3.20× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: mediad::main mediad/src/main.rs:199— FunctionTooLong — mediad::main runs 254 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 154 over it, 2.54× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: duckctl::run duckctl/src/main.rs:1362— FunctionTooLong — duckctl::run runs 228 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 128 over it, 2.28× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: robotd::dispatch robotd/src/main.rs:4298— FunctionTooLong — robotd::dispatch runs 226 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 126 over it, 2.26× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: btd::bluez::serve_on_an_adapter btd/src/bluez.rs:240— FunctionTooLong — btd::bluez::serve_on_an_adapter runs 191 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 91 over it, 1.91× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: mediad::pipeline::start mediad/src/pipeline.rs:384— FunctionTooLong — mediad::pipeline::start runs 180 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 80 over it, 1.80× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: robotctl::configure::run robotctl/src/configure.rs:357— FunctionTooLong — robotctl::configure::run runs 165 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 65 over it, 1.65× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: duckctl::request_line duckctl/src/main.rs:2107— FunctionTooLong — duckctl::request_line runs 150 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 50 over it, 1.50× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: robotctl::configure::draw robotctl/src/configure.rs:751— FunctionTooLong — robotctl::configure::draw runs 136 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 36 over it, 1.36× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: updater::install updater/src/main.rs:313— FunctionTooLong — updater::install runs 132 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 32 over it, 1.32× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: robotctl::render_health robotctl/src/main.rs:1751— FunctionTooLong — robotctl::render_health runs 131 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 31 over it, 1.31× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: sounds::chorale::midi::parse sounds/src/chorale/midi.rs:95— FunctionTooLong — sounds::chorale::midi::parse runs 130 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 30 over it, 1.30× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: sounds::main sounds/src/main.rs:281— FunctionTooLong — sounds::main runs 125 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 25 over it, 1.25× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: duck_detect::bin::duck-bench::main duck-detect/src/bin/duck-bench.rs:140— FunctionTooLong — duck_detect::bin::duck-bench::main runs 122 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 22 over it, 1.22× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: robotctl::run_policy robotctl/src/main.rs:3472— FunctionTooLong — robotctl::run_policy runs 120 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 20 over it, 1.20× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: mediad::pipeline::build_stream_branch mediad/src/pipeline.rs:754— FunctionTooLong — mediad::pipeline::build_stream_branch runs 108 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 8 over it, 1.08× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: robotctl::run robotctl/src/main.rs:4925— FunctionTooLong — robotctl::run runs 108 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 8 over it, 1.08× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: robotctl::run_policy_skill robotctl/src/main.rs:3747— FunctionTooLong — robotctl::run_policy_skill runs 101 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1 over it, 1.01× 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.
FileTooLong: src/main.rs robotctl/src/main.rs— FileTooLong — 2796 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), declaring 77 free functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 2296 over it, 5.59× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/main.rs robotd/src/main.rs— FileTooLong — 2467 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), declaring 45 free functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1967 over it, 4.93× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/lib.rs duck-ipc-proto/src/lib.rs— FileTooLong — 2101 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1601 over it, 4.20× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/monitor.rs robotctl/src/monitor.rs— FileTooLong — 1674 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1174 over it, 3.35× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/engine.rs updater/src/engine.rs— FileTooLong — 1616 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 72% of them inside a single declaration: Engine (2 blocks, 188-2535). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1116 over it, 3.23× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/pipeline.rs mediad/src/pipeline.rs— FileTooLong — 1152 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 652 over it, 2.30× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/main.rs duckctl/src/main.rs— FileTooLong — 1148 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), declaring 39 free functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 648 over it, 2.30× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/lib.rs robotd-params/src/lib.rs— FileTooLong — 874 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 374 over it, 1.75× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/relay.rs mediad/src/relay.rs— FileTooLong — 725 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 225 over it, 1.45× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/ipc.rs updater/src/ipc.rs— FileTooLong — 628 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 92% of them inside a single declaration: Server (2 blocks, 100-1093). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 128 over it, 1.26× 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: src/policy.rs updater/src/policy.rs— FileTooLong — 537 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 37 over it, 1.07× 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: src/configure.rs robotctl/src/configure.rs— FileTooLong — 517 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 17 over it, 1.03× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/main.rs padd/src/main.rs— FileTooLong — 506 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 6 over it, 1.01× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/tap.rs padd/src/tap.rs— FileTooLong — 502 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 2 over it, 1.00× 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.
robotctl::configure::run (cognitive 95) robotctl/src/configure.rs:357— robotctl::configure::run has cognitive complexity 95 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (59 pts), match/switch 11 (34 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 60). 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.
robotctl::configure::draw (cognitive 45) robotctl/src/configure.rs:751— robotctl::configure::draw has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (36 pts), match/switch 5 (7 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
robotctl::render_health (cognitive 42) robotctl/src/main.rs:1751— robotctl::render_health has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (24 pts), match/switch 7 (15 pts), loops 3 (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.
robotctl::run_policy (cognitive 42) robotctl/src/main.rs:3472— robotctl::run_policy has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (29 pts), match/switch 5 (9 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 19). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
robotctl::run_pad_bindings (cognitive 33) robotctl/src/main.rs:4348— robotctl::run_pad_bindings has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (21 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), match/switch 2 (5 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.
robotctl::print_result (cognitive 24) robotctl/src/main.rs:5121— robotctl::print_result has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (11 pts), if/else 4 (7 pts), loops 2 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
robotctl::monitor::live (cognitive 20) robotctl/src/monitor.rs:903— robotctl::monitor::live has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 4 (12 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), if/else 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
robotctl::run_chorale (cognitive 19) robotctl/src/main.rs:687— robotctl::run_chorale has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
robotctl::monitor::subscribe_to_tof (cognitive 18) robotctl/src/monitor.rs:591— robotctl::monitor::subscribe_to_tof has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (11 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 1, 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.
robotctl::run_policy_skill (cognitive 17) robotctl/src/main.rs:3747— robotctl::run_policy_skill has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (15 pts), match/switch 2 (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.
robotctl::show::render (cognitive 16) robotctl/src/show.rs:47— robotctl::show::render has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), loops 3, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
robotctl::show::event_line (cognitive 16) robotctl/src/show.rs:136— robotctl::show::event_line has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (8 pts), match/switch 4 (6 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
robotctl::render_policies (cognitive 16) robotctl/src/main.rs:4171— robotctl::render_policies has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (11 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
robotctl::configure::run (cyclomatic 55) robotctl/src/configure.rs:357— robotctl::configure::run has cyclomatic complexity 55 (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.
robotctl::run (cyclomatic 30) robotctl/src/main.rs:4925— robotctl::run has cyclomatic complexity 30 (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.
robotctl::render_health (cyclomatic 29) robotctl/src/main.rs:1751— robotctl::render_health 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.
robotctl::run_policy (cyclomatic 27) robotctl/src/main.rs:3472— robotctl::run_policy has cyclomatic complexity 27 (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.
robotctl::configure::draw (cyclomatic 26) robotctl/src/configure.rs:751— robotctl::configure::draw 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.
robotctl::monitor::live (cyclomatic 26) robotctl/src/monitor.rs:903— robotctl::monitor::live has cyclomatic complexity 26 (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.
robotctl::run_pad_bindings (cyclomatic 21) robotctl/src/main.rs:4348— robotctl::run_pad_bindings has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
robotctl::show::event_line (cyclomatic 20) robotctl/src/show.rs:136— robotctl::show::event_line has cyclomatic complexity 20 (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.
robotctl::print_result (cyclomatic 16) robotctl/src/main.rs:5121— robotctl::print_result has cyclomatic complexity 16 (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. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: robotctl::run_robot (cyclomatic 18) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded function is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) btd/src/main.rs:95— btd/src/main.rs:95-103 | configd/src/main.rs:195-203 — before extracting anything, compare `btd/src/main.rs` and `configd/src/main.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) btd/src/upstream.rs:226— btd/src/upstream.rs:226-234 | mediad/src/upstream.rs:179-187 — before extracting anything, compare `btd/src/upstream.rs` and `mediad/src/upstream.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 61 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) configd/src/main.rs:376— configd/src/main.rs:376-384 | updater/src/ipc.rs:467-475 — before extracting anything, compare `configd/src/main.rs` and `updater/src/ipc.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) robotd/src/main.rs:212— robotd/src/main.rs:212-220 | robotd/src/main.rs:1384-1392 — 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) tof/src/main.rs:744— tof/src/main.rs:744-752 | tof/src/main.rs:769-777 — 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) updater/src/engine.rs:1167— updater/src/engine.rs:1167-1175 | updater/src/engine.rs:1657-1665 — 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) btd/src/upstream.rs:256— btd/src/upstream.rs:256-264 | mediad/src/upstream.rs:209-217 — before extracting anything, compare `btd/src/upstream.rs` and `mediad/src/upstream.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 61 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) robotd/src/main.rs:3618— robotd/src/main.rs:3618-3626 | robotd/src/main.rs:3670-3678 — 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) spaces/shared/wire.py:186— spaces/shared/wire.py:186-194 | spaces/vision-demo/wire.py:186-194 — `spaces/shared/wire.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/wire.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 219 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. 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.
mediad::main (cognitive 58) mediad/src/main.rs:199— mediad::main has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (34 pts), match/switch 12 (18 pts), loops 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 19). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
mediad::exposure::spawn (cognitive 24) mediad/src/exposure.rs:215— mediad::exposure::spawn has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), match/switch 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
mediad::relay::carry (cognitive 23) mediad/src/relay.rs:1322— mediad::relay::carry has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (14 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), 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.
mediad::pipeline::find_sensor (cognitive 21) mediad/src/pipeline.rs:1629— mediad::pipeline::find_sensor has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (2 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.
mediad::detect::spawn (cognitive 20) mediad/src/detect.rs:151— mediad::detect::spawn has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (16 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 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.
mediad::pipeline::meter_capture_rate (cognitive 18) mediad/src/pipeline.rs:1824— mediad::pipeline::meter_capture_rate has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (16 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 9). 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.
mediad::stream::carry (cognitive 18) mediad/src/stream.rs:269— mediad::stream::carry has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (9 pts), match/switch 3 (8 pts), 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.
mediad::session::handle (cognitive 16) mediad/src/session.rs:146— mediad::session::handle has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (12 pts), if/else 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) padd/src/tap.rs:176— padd/src/tap.rs:176-182 | tof/src/main.rs:624-630 — before extracting anything, compare `padd/src/tap.rs` and `tof/src/main.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) robotd/src/soc.rs:108— robotd/src/soc.rs:108-119 | robotd/src/soc.rs:157-163 — 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) sounds/src/voices.rs:143— sounds/src/voices.rs:143-149 | sounds/src/voices.rs:310-316 — 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) updater/src/journal.rs:224— updater/src/journal.rs:224-230 | updater/src/journal.rs:485-491 — 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) updater/src/journal.rs:250— updater/src/journal.rs:250-256 | updater/src/journal.rs:499-505 — 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) btd/src/main.rs:67— btd/src/main.rs:67-75 | configd/src/main.rs:185-191 — before extracting anything, compare `btd/src/main.rs` and `configd/src/main.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) btd/src/session.rs:196— btd/src/session.rs:196-202 | btd/src/session.rs:252-258 — 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) updater/src/ipc.rs:580— updater/src/ipc.rs:580-586 | updater/src/ipc.rs:759-765 — 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: duck-ble — duck-ble: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 2 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: duck-ipc-proto — duck-ipc-proto: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 14 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: kinematics — kinematics: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: pet-detect — pet-detect: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: sounds — sounds: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: uyvy — uyvy: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: robotd-params — robotd-params: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.29, distance 0.71 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 5 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
MethodTooLong: Server.dispatch updater/src/ipc.rs:521— MethodTooLong — dispatch runs 228 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 128 over it, 2.28× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Engine.stage_and_swap updater/src/engine.rs:904— MethodTooLong — stage_and_swap runs 186 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 86 over it, 1.86× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Controller.step robotd/src/control.rs:427— MethodTooLong — step runs 137 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 37 over it, 1.37× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: NetworkManager.connect configd/src/nm.rs:550— MethodTooLong — connect runs 115 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 15 over it, 1.15× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: BlueZ.pair configd/src/bluez.rs:853— MethodTooLong — pair runs 114 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 14 over it, 1.14× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Model.open duck-detect/src/rknn.rs:182— MethodTooLong — open runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.09× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) configd/src/bluez.rs:690— configd/src/bluez.rs:690-700 | configd/src/bluez.rs:766-776 — 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) configd/src/main.rs:354— configd/src/main.rs:354-364 | robotd/src/main.rs:3561-3571 — before extracting anything, compare `configd/src/main.rs` and `robotd/src/main.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 43 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) updater/src/verify.rs:209— updater/src/verify.rs:209-219 | updater/src/verify.rs:256-266 — 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.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) robotctl/src/main.rs:2577— robotctl/src/main.rs:2577-2587 | robotctl/src/main.rs:2598-2613 — 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) robotctl/src/main.rs:2591— robotctl/src/main.rs:2591-2601 | robotctl/src/main.rs:2617-2627 — 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) spaces/shared/control.py:62— spaces/shared/control.py:62-72 | spaces/vision-demo/control.py:62-72 — `spaces/shared/control.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/control.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 89 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) configd/src/main.rs:444— configd/src/main.rs:444-451 | robotd/src/main.rs:4711-4718 — before extracting anything, compare `configd/src/main.rs` and `robotd/src/main.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 43 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) robotctl/src/main.rs:1922— robotctl/src/main.rs:1922-1929 | robotctl/src/main.rs:2660-2669 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) robotctl/src/main.rs:601— robotctl/src/main.rs:601-608 | robotctl/src/main.rs:708-715 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) robotctl/src/main.rs:2055— robotctl/src/main.rs:2055-2062 | robotctl/src/main.rs:2080-2087 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) robotctl/src/monitor.rs:550— robotctl/src/monitor.rs:550-557 | robotctl/src/monitor.rs:597-604 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) spaces/shared/control.py:157— spaces/shared/control.py:157-164 | spaces/vision-demo/control.py:157-164 — `spaces/shared/control.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/control.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 89 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) btd/src/upstream.rs:212— btd/src/upstream.rs:212-217 | mediad/src/upstream.rs:166-171 — before extracting anything, compare `btd/src/upstream.rs` and `mediad/src/upstream.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 61 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) mediad/src/pipeline.rs:477— mediad/src/pipeline.rs:477-482 | mediad/src/pipeline.rs:627-632 — 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) robotctl/src/main.rs:2178— robotctl/src/main.rs:2178-2183 | updater/src/journal.rs:19-24 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) robotd/src/sound.rs:378— robotd/src/sound.rs:378-383 | robotd/src/sound.rs:477-482 — 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) pad-imu/src/lib.rs:385— pad-imu/src/lib.rs:385-390 | robotctl/src/duck.rs:266-271 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) robotctl/src/main.rs:2164— robotctl/src/main.rs:2164-2169 | robotctl/src/show.rs:393-398 — 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.
robotd::control_loop (cyclomatic 185) robotd/src/main.rs:1761— robotd::control_loop has cyclomatic complexity 185 (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: robotd/src/main.rs holds 4 of the 38 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 217 of the 624 points over it (35%), 2.9× the next-largest file (duckctl/src/main.rs at 75). 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.
robotd::dispatch (cyclomatic 51) robotd/src/main.rs:4298— robotd::dispatch has cyclomatic complexity 51 (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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: robotd/src/main.rs holds 4 of the 38 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 217 of the 624 points over it (35%), 2.9× the next-largest file (duckctl/src/main.rs at 75). 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.
robotd::handle (cyclomatic 24) robotd/src/main.rs:3581— robotd::handle has cyclomatic complexity 24 (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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: robotd/src/main.rs holds 4 of the 38 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 217 of the 624 points over it (35%), 2.9× the next-largest file (duckctl/src/main.rs at 75). 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.
robotd::load_policy_request (cyclomatic 17) robotd/src/main.rs:4127— robotd::load_policy_request 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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: robotd/src/main.rs holds 4 of the 38 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 217 of the 624 points over it (35%), 2.9× the next-largest file (duckctl/src/main.rs at 75). 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.
robotd::control_loop (cognitive 462) robotd/src/main.rs:1761— robotd::control_loop has cognitive complexity 462 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 111 (284 pts), match/switch 28 (94 pts), boolean chains 46, loops 12 (38 pts) (nesting depth added 265). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: robotd/src/main.rs holds 4 of the 77 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 504 of the 1464 points over it (34%), 3.2× the next-largest file (padd/src/main.rs at 160). 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.
robotd::handle (cognitive 45) robotd/src/main.rs:3581— robotd::handle has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 9 (24 pts), if/else 8 (20 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 27). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: robotd/src/main.rs holds 4 of the 77 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 504 of the 1464 points over it (34%), 3.2× the next-largest file (padd/src/main.rs at 160). 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.
robotd::dispatch (cognitive 38) robotd/src/main.rs:4298— robotd::dispatch has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (31 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 11). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: robotd/src/main.rs holds 4 of the 77 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 504 of the 1464 points over it (34%), 3.2× the next-largest file (padd/src/main.rs at 160). 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.
robotd::load_policy_request (cognitive 19) robotd/src/main.rs:4127— robotd::load_policy_request has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 8 (11 pts), if/else 5 (7 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: robotd/src/main.rs holds 4 of the 77 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 504 of the 1464 points over it (34%), 3.2× the next-largest file (padd/src/main.rs at 160). 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.
btd::chorale::radio::run (cognitive 33) btd/src/chorale.rs:184— btd::chorale::radio::run has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (20 pts), match/switch 4 (12 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
btd::session::run (cognitive 28) btd/src/session.rs:32— btd::session::run has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 2 (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.
btd::bluez::reconcile_advertisement (cognitive 17) btd/src/bluez.rs:844— btd::bluez::reconcile_advertisement has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, 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.
btd::session::dispatch (cognitive 16) btd/src/session.rs:131— btd::session::dispatch has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 8 (11 pts), if/else 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
ClassTooLong: Engine updater/src/engine.rs:188— ClassTooLong — 1164 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 46 methods, 2 blocks, lines 188-2535. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 764 over it, 2.91× 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: View robotctl/src/monitor.rs:1357— ClassTooLong — 917 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 46 methods, 2 blocks, lines 1357-3021. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 517 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: Server updater/src/ipc.rs:100— ClassTooLong — 576 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 19 methods, 2 blocks, lines 100-1093. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 176 over it, 1.44× 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: Call duck-ipc-proto/src/lib.rs:963— ClassTooLong — 406 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 6 methods, 2 blocks, lines 963-1639. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 6 over it, 1.02× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) configd/src/main.rs:387— configd/src/main.rs:387-396 | robotd/src/main.rs:3688-3697 — before extracting anything, compare `configd/src/main.rs` and `robotd/src/main.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 43 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) configd/src/main.rs:394— configd/src/main.rs:394-403 | tof/src/main.rs:696-705 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) configd/src/nm.rs:258— configd/src/nm.rs:258-267 | configd/src/nm.rs:292-301 — 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) robotd/src/sound.rs:411— robotd/src/sound.rs:411-420 | robotd/src/sound.rs:529-538 — 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.
padd::main (cognitive 175) padd/src/main.rs:382— padd::main has cognitive complexity 175 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 54 (125 pts), match/switch 14 (36 pts), boolean chains 7, loops 4 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 96). 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.
padd::tap::stream_imu (cognitive 26) padd/src/tap.rs:768— padd::tap::stream_imu has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (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.
padd::tap::stream (cognitive 17) padd/src/tap.rs:667— padd::tap::stream has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (11 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
sounds::chorale::midi::parse (cognitive 62) sounds/src/chorale/midi.rs:95— sounds::chorale::midi::parse has cognitive complexity 62 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (41 pts), match/switch 3 (12 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 36). 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.
sounds::chorale::text::parse (cognitive 19) sounds/src/chorale/text.rs:56— sounds::chorale::text::parse has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), 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.
sounds::main (cognitive 19) sounds/src/main.rs:281— sounds::main has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (8 pts), match/switch 5 (8 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
Sound::sing_start (cognitive 25) robotd/src/sound.rs:437— Sound::sing_start has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (16 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Sound::theremin_start (cognitive 21) robotd/src/sound.rs:324— Sound::theremin_start has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (16 pts), loops 2 (3 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.
Sound::start_wheee (cognitive 17) robotd/src/sound.rs:708— Sound::start_wheee has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (12 pts), loops 4 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
updater::source::http::attempt_download (cognitive 18) updater/src/source/http.rs:203— updater::source::http::attempt_download has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (11 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 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.
updater::install (cognitive 17) updater/src/main.rs:313— updater::install has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (9 pts), if/else 4 (7 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
updater::policy::fetch (cognitive 16) updater/src/policy.rs:1273— updater::policy::fetch has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (9 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 2, match/switch 2 (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.
TooManyMethods: View robotctl/src/monitor.rs:1357— TooManyMethods — 46 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 16 over it, 1.53× 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: Engine updater/src/engine.rs:188— TooManyMethods — 46 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 16 over it, 1.53× 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: Intents robotd/src/intents.rs:137— TooManyMethods — 34 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 4 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) robotctl/src/show.rs:360— robotctl/src/show.rs:360-372 | updater/src/engine.rs:2873-2885 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) robotctl/src/main.rs:609— robotctl/src/main.rs:609-626 | robotctl/src/main.rs:716-728 — 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 (13 lines × 2) robotd/src/main.rs:2098— robotd/src/main.rs:2098-2110 | robotd/src/main.rs:2714-2729 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) btd/src/main.rs:178— btd/src/main.rs:178-189 | configd/src/main.rs:622-633 — before extracting anything, compare `btd/src/main.rs` and `configd/src/main.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) configd/src/main.rs:397— configd/src/main.rs:397-408 | updater/src/ipc.rs:488-499 — before extracting anything, compare `configd/src/main.rs` and `updater/src/ipc.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) spaces/shared/rendezvous.py:141— spaces/shared/rendezvous.py:141-152 | spaces/vision-demo/rendezvous.py:141-152 — `spaces/shared/rendezvous.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/rendezvous.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 106 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) configd/src/main.rs:612— configd/src/main.rs:612-616 | robotd/src/main.rs:4736-4740 | updater/src/ipc.rs:1129-1133 — before extracting anything, compare `configd/src/main.rs` and `robotd/src/main.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 43 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) mediad/src/frame.rs:252— mediad/src/frame.rs:252-256 | padd/src/tap.rs:964-968 | tof/src/main.rs:808-812 — before extracting anything, compare `padd/src/tap.rs` and `tof/src/main.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) sounds/src/voices.rs:78— sounds/src/voices.rs:78-82 | sounds/src/voices.rs:141-146 | sounds/src/voices.rs:159-163 — 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.
duckctl::run (cyclomatic 61) duckctl/src/main.rs:1362— duckctl::run has cyclomatic complexity 61 (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.
duckctl::request_line (cyclomatic 44) duckctl/src/main.rs:2107— duckctl::request_line has cyclomatic complexity 44 (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.
sounds::chorale::midi::parse (cyclomatic 29) sounds/src/chorale/midi.rs:95— sounds::chorale::midi::parse 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.
sounds::main (cyclomatic 17) sounds/src/main.rs:281— sounds::main 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.
BlueZ::bond (cyclomatic 21) configd/src/bluez.rs:662— BlueZ::bond has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
BlueZ::pair (cyclomatic 16) configd/src/bluez.rs:853— BlueZ::pair has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
updater::install (cyclomatic 21) updater/src/main.rs:313— updater::install has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
updater::source::http::attempt_download (cyclomatic 18) updater/src/source/http.rs:203— updater::source::http::attempt_download has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.
Engine::apply_inner (cyclomatic 17) updater/src/engine.rs:713— Engine::apply_inner 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.
Engine::stage_and_swap (cyclomatic 16) updater/src/engine.rs:904— Engine::stage_and_swap has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
duckctl::run (cognitive 102) duckctl/src/main.rs:1362— duckctl::run has cognitive complexity 102 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 39 (76 pts), match/switch 6 (12 pts), boolean chains 7, loops 5 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 45). 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.
duckctl::request_line (cognitive 17) duckctl/src/main.rs:2107— duckctl::request_line has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), match/switch 2 (3 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.
duck_ether::serve (cognitive 39) duck-ether/src/main.rs:248— duck_ether::serve has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (31 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 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.
duck_ether::nearby (cognitive 19) duck-ether/src/main.rs:311— duck_ether::nearby has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), 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.
NetworkManager::connect (cognitive 33) configd/src/nm.rs:550— NetworkManager::connect has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (20 pts), match/switch 5 (8 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
NetworkManager::scan (cognitive 16) configd/src/nm.rs:463— NetworkManager::scan has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (8 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Server::dispatch (cognitive 33) updater/src/ipc.rs:521— Server::dispatch has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 15 (29 pts), if/else 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 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. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
Server::check_all (cognitive 25) updater/src/ipc.rs:313— Server::check_all has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (17 pts), match/switch 4 (7 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
BlueZ::bond (cognitive 31) configd/src/bluez.rs:662— BlueZ::bond has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), match/switch 6 (15 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
BlueZ::pair (cognitive 19) configd/src/bluez.rs:853— BlueZ::pair has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
Relay::session (cognitive 28) mediad/src/relay.rs:652— Relay::session has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), match/switch 6 (12 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Relay::handle (cognitive 18) mediad/src/relay.rs:905— Relay::handle has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (17 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 8). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
View::power (cognitive 27) robotctl/src/monitor.rs:2122— View::power has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (18 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
View::render (cognitive 21) robotctl/src/monitor.rs:1605— View::render has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (19 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
tof::sensor_loop (cognitive 22) tof/src/main.rs:301— tof::sensor_loop has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 3 (11 pts), if/else 2 (7 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 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. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
tof::imu::imu_loop (cognitive 16) tof/src/imu.rs:124— tof::imu::imu_loop has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 2 (7 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Engine::recover_on_start (cognitive 22) updater/src/engine.rs:1844— Engine::recover_on_start has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (14 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 2, 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.
Engine::stage_and_swap (cognitive 17) updater/src/engine.rs:904— Engine::stage_and_swap has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) uyvy/src/lib.rs:119— uyvy/src/lib.rs:119-139 | uyvy/src/lib.rs:190-210 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) spaces/shared/rendezvous.py:117— spaces/shared/rendezvous.py:117-137 | spaces/vision-demo/rendezvous.py:117-137 — `spaces/shared/rendezvous.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/rendezvous.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 106 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) robotd/src/sound.rs:343— robotd/src/sound.rs:343-361 | robotd/src/sound.rs:582-600 — 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 (19 lines × 2) spaces/shared/wire.py:199— spaces/shared/wire.py:199-217 | spaces/vision-demo/wire.py:199-217 — `spaces/shared/wire.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/wire.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 219 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
Duplicated block (15–17 lines × 2) pad-imu/src/lib.rs:334— pad-imu/src/lib.rs:334-350 | robotctl/src/duck.rs:230-244 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (15–17 lines × 2) robotd/src/main.rs:3608— robotd/src/main.rs:3608-3624 | robotd/src/main.rs:3638-3652 — 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 (9–10 lines × 2) btd/src/chorale.rs:263— btd/src/chorale.rs:263-272 | duck-ether/src/main.rs:299-307 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) robotctl/src/main.rs:591— robotctl/src/main.rs:591-599 | robotctl/src/main.rs:697-706 — 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) duck-ipc-proto/src/lib.rs:5262— duck-ipc-proto/src/lib.rs:5262-5266 | duck-ipc-proto/src/lib.rs:5330-5334 — 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) robotd-params/src/edit.rs:100— robotd-params/src/edit.rs:100-104 | robotd-params/src/edit.rs:625-629 — 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 (38 lines × 2) spaces/shared/control.py:117— spaces/shared/control.py:117-154 | spaces/vision-demo/control.py:117-154 — `spaces/shared/control.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/control.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 89 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. 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 (38 lines × 2) spaces/shared/wire.py:220— spaces/shared/wire.py:220-257 | spaces/vision-demo/wire.py:220-257 — `spaces/shared/wire.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/wire.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 219 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. 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 (14 lines × 2) spaces/shared/rendezvous.py:101— spaces/shared/rendezvous.py:101-114 | spaces/vision-demo/rendezvous.py:101-114 — `spaces/shared/rendezvous.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/rendezvous.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 106 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) spaces/shared/wire.py:153— spaces/shared/wire.py:153-166 | spaces/vision-demo/wire.py:153-166 — `spaces/shared/wire.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/wire.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 219 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
Low cohesion: Intents (LCOM4 6) robotd/src/intents.rs:137— Intents's methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: FakeIo (LCOM4 4) duck-control/src/io.rs:195— FakeIo's methods fall into 4 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 4 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.
AC7 · A11y enforcement· Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1
Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (an accessibility check that can read your UI — no component framework was detected and your pages are rendered by server-side templates, which neither the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins nor the HTML-template linters can parse; run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, or assert the accessibility invariants over that rendered HTML in the test suite you already have) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start by running that check over your rendered pages in CI. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 3 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
padd::main (cyclomatic 86) padd/src/main.rs:382— padd::main has cyclomatic complexity 86 (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::dispatch (cyclomatic 43) updater/src/ipc.rs:521— Server::dispatch has cyclomatic complexity 43 (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.
Controller::step (cyclomatic 39) robotd/src/control.rs:427— Controller::step has cyclomatic complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
mediad::main (cyclomatic 34) mediad/src/main.rs:199— mediad::main has cyclomatic complexity 34 (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.
configd::dispatch (cyclomatic 23) configd/src/main.rs:419— configd::dispatch has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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.
NetworkManager::connect (cyclomatic 21) configd/src/nm.rs:550— NetworkManager::connect has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
View::power (cyclomatic 21) robotctl/src/monitor.rs:2122— View::power 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.
hub.readHub (cyclomatic 21) spaces/policy-playground/web/src/hub.ts:200— hub.readHub has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). Of this number, 19 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Relay::session (cyclomatic 18) mediad/src/relay.rs:652— Relay::session has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.
Model::edit (cyclomatic 18) robotd-params/src/edit.rs:235— Model::edit has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.
Streamer::start (cyclomatic 17) mediad/src/stream.rs:400— Streamer::start has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Sound::sing_start (cyclomatic 17) robotd/src/sound.rs:437— Sound::sing_start has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
main.card (cyclomatic 17) spaces/policy-playground/web/src/main.ts:466— main.card has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
duck_detect::bin::duck-bench::main (cyclomatic 16) duck-detect/src/bin/duck-bench.rs:140— duck_detect::bin::duck-bench::main 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.
Config::validate (cyclomatic 16) updater/src/config.rs:402— Config::validate 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.
Controller::step (cognitive 61) robotd/src/control.rs:427— Controller::step has cognitive complexity 61 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (38 pts), boolean chains 8, match/switch 5 (8 pts), loops 3 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Score::from_gestures (cognitive 34) sounds/src/chorale/mod.rs:337— Score::from_gestures has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (19 pts), loops 5 (13 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
hub.readHub (cognitive 31) spaces/policy-playground/web/src/hub.ts:200— hub.readHub has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), ternaries 5 (9 pts), loops 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 2, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 13). Of this number, 30 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
duck_detect::bin::duck-bench::main (cognitive 30) duck-detect/src/bin/duck-bench.rs:140— duck_detect::bin::duck-bench::main has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (23 pts), loops 4 (5 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 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.
Streamer::start (cognitive 25) mediad/src/stream.rs:400— Streamer::start has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 3, 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.
SoundSentry::frame (cognitive 25) pet-detect/src/worker.rs:121— SoundSentry::frame has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (24 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.
Config::validate (cognitive 23) updater/src/config.rs:402— Config::validate has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (15 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (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.
Chorale::heard (cognitive 22) robotd/src/chorale.rs:264— Chorale::heard has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (17 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 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.
Personality::harmonics (cognitive 19) sounds/src/personality.rs:123— Personality::harmonics has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (17 pts), boolean chains 1, 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.
Stream::block (cognitive 19) sounds/src/stream.rs:327— Stream::block has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), loops 2 (3 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.
DuckView::draw (cognitive 18) robotctl/src/duck.rs:403— DuckView::draw has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 6 (8 pts), if/else 4 (5 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
xtask::package (cognitive 18) xtask/src/main.rs:287— xtask::package has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 2, match/switch 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.
WsConsumer._pump (cognitive 17) spaces/shared/wire.py:259— WsConsumer._pump has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1, error handling 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.
main.header (cognitive 17) spaces/policy-playground/web/src/main.ts:531— main.header has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (8 pts), ternaries 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
PadView::frame (cognitive 16) robotctl/src/monitor.rs:1151— PadView::frame has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (15 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 3). 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.
Model::edit (cognitive 16) robotd-params/src/edit.rs:235— Model::edit has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 2 (3 pts), loops 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.
Session.handle (cognitive 16) spaces/policy-playground/web/src/rendezvous.ts:275— Session.handle has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (12 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, error handling 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.
main.card (cognitive 16) spaces/policy-playground/web/src/main.ts:466— main.card has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8, ternaries 4 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Duplicate method signature with different parameter names (one uses `_lines`/`_boot`, the other uses `lines`/`boot`). This suggests an accidental overload or copy-paste error in the API definition. · ×1
Duplicate method signature with different parameter names (one uses `_lines`/`_boot`, the other uses `lines`/`boot`). This suggests an accidental overload or copy-paste error in the API definition. — Remove the duplicate signature. If the intent was to have an overload, ensure the types differ; if not, keep only the canonical version. (signatures: configd.logs.read(unit: str, lines: usize, boot: i32): Result | configd.logs.read(unit: str, _lines: usize, _boot: i32): Result)
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Two methods perform the same core operation (pairing a link) but differ only in how the MTU is passed (owned `usize` vs shared `AtomicUsize`). This creates unnecessary cognitive load and API surface duplication. · ×1
Two methods perform the same core operation (pairing a link) but differ only in how the MTU is passed (owned `usize` vs shared `AtomicUsize`). This creates unnecessary cognitive load and API surface duplication. — Unify into a single method, e.g., `pair(mtu: impl Into<AtomicUsize>, peer: ...)`, or expose the atomicity as a property of the returned `Link` rather than a constructor choice. (signatures: Link.pair(mtu: usize, peer: impl Into<String>): (Self, Sender<Vec<u8>>, Receiver<Vec<u8>>) | Link.pair_sharing_mtu(mtu: AtomicUsize, peer: impl Into<String>): (Self, Sender<Vec<u8>>, Receiver<Vec<u8>>))
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Naming inconsistency in the `configd.pad` module. `Pads.pair` is a method on the struct, while `pad.pair_timeout` appears to be a free function or module-level helper. The naming convention `pair_timeout` suggests it returns a timeout, but it's unclear if it's a configuration helper or a distinct operation compared to `Pads.pair`. · ×1
Naming inconsistency in the `configd.pad` module. `Pads.pair` is a method on the struct, while `pad.pair_timeout` appears to be a free function or module-level helper. The naming convention `pair_timeout` suggests it returns a timeout, but it's unclear if it's a configuration helper or a distinct operation compared to `Pads.pair`. — Clarify if `pad.pair_timeout` is a configuration constant/helper. If so, rename to `DEFAULT_PAIR_TIMEOUT` or similar to distinguish it from the action `Pads.pair`. (signatures: configd.pad.Pads.pair(mac: str, timeout: Duration): PadResult | configd.pad.pad.pair_timeout(requested: u32): Duration)
D22 · Internal API Consistency· While technically distinct types, the `infer` method signature is identical across different backend implementations (`onnx` vs `rknn`). If these are meant to be interchangeable via a trait, the trait should be exposed. If not, the duplication is acceptable but highlights a potential lack of abstraction. · ×1
While technically distinct types, the `infer` method signature is identical across different backend implementations (`onnx` vs `rknn`). If these are meant to be interchangeable via a trait, the trait should be exposed. If not, the duplication is acceptable but highlights a potential lack of abstraction. — Ensure a common `InferenceBackend` trait is defined and used if these are meant to be polymorphic. If not, this is a minor consistency note rather than a strict error, but worth noting for API design. (signatures: duck_detect.onnx.Model.infer(frame: &[u8], out: f32): Result | duck_detect.rknn.Model.infer(frame: &[u8], out: f32): Result)
TooManyFields: RobotState robotd/src/main.rs:525— TooManyFields — 40 stored fields beside 6 methods. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 10 over it, 1.33× the bar. This is width in DATA, not behaviour: every reader that takes the whole type couples to all of its fields, so a change to any one of them is a change every reader has to be checked against. To reduce it, group the fields that are read together by the same callers into a smaller type of their own, and have this one hold that type as a single member — each reader then names only the group it uses.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities· Medium advisory (unmaintained) · ×1
Near-duplicate member pair (52 shared lines) robotctl/src/main.rs:583— robotctl/src/main.rs:583-680 | robotctl/src/main.rs:687-798 — These two members are variants of one another: 52 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication· Edited copy of a member (16 corresponding lines) · ×1
Edited copy of a member (16 corresponding lines) spaces/shared/rendezvous.py:99— spaces/shared/rendezvous.py:99-114 | spaces/vision-demo/rendezvous.py:99-114 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 16 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.
D4 · Code Duplication· Edited copy of a member (17 corresponding lines) · ×1
Edited copy of a member (17 corresponding lines) pad-imu/src/lib.rs:332— pad-imu/src/lib.rs:332-351 | robotctl/src/duck.rs:225-248 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 17 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) btd/src/main.rs:175— btd/src/main.rs:175-189 | configd/src/main.rs:619-633 | robotd/src/main.rs:4743-4760 | updater/src/main.rs:684-701 — 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 (65–84 lines × 2) btd/src/route.rs:323— btd/src/route.rs:323-406 | mediad/src/route.rs:103-167 — 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 (21–23 lines × 2) robotctl/src/main.rs:633— robotctl/src/main.rs:633-655 | robotctl/src/main.rs:736-756 — 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 (20 lines × 2) btd/src/upstream.rs:189— btd/src/upstream.rs:189-208 | mediad/src/upstream.rs:143-162 — before extracting anything, compare `btd/src/upstream.rs` and `mediad/src/upstream.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 61 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 2) robotctl/src/main.rs:3689— robotctl/src/main.rs:3689-3707 | robotctl/src/main.rs:3962-3979 — 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 (18 lines × 3) mediad/src/frame.rs:233— mediad/src/frame.rs:233-250 | padd/src/tap.rs:945-962 | tof/src/main.rs:788-805 — before extracting anything, compare `padd/src/tap.rs` and `tof/src/main.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) btd/src/upstream.rs:166— btd/src/upstream.rs:166-182 | mediad/src/upstream.rs:121-137 — before extracting anything, compare `btd/src/upstream.rs` and `mediad/src/upstream.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 61 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11–16 lines × 2) duckctl/src/main.rs:1828— duckctl/src/main.rs:1828-1838 | robotctl/src/main.rs:4007-4022 — 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 (16 lines × 2) robotd/src/main.rs:4745— robotd/src/main.rs:4745-4760 | updater/src/main.rs:686-701 — 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 (12–15 lines × 2) tof/src/main.rs:349— tof/src/main.rs:349-363 | tof/src/main.rs:503-514 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 3) updater/src/ipc.rs:634— updater/src/ipc.rs:634-645 | updater/src/ipc.rs:660-671 | updater/src/ipc.rs:707-719 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (10–12 lines × 2) configd/src/main.rs:113— configd/src/main.rs:113-122 | updater/src/ipc.rs:79-90 — before extracting anything, compare `configd/src/main.rs` and `updater/src/ipc.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 4) btd/src/main.rs:176— btd/src/main.rs:176-184 | configd/src/main.rs:620-628 | robotd/src/main.rs:4744-4751 | updater/src/main.rs:685-692 — before extracting anything, compare `btd/src/main.rs` and `configd/src/main.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6–9 lines × 2) mediad/src/frame.rs:45— mediad/src/frame.rs:45-50 | robotd/src/main.rs:3476-3484 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) mediad/src/main.rs:200— mediad/src/main.rs:200-207 | padd/src/main.rs:383-390 | updater/src/main.rs:214-223 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
Duplicated block (6–7 lines × 2) sounds/src/voices.rs:309— sounds/src/voices.rs:309-314 | sounds/src/voices.rs:374-380 — 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 (59 lines × 2) spaces/shared/rendezvous.py:158— spaces/shared/rendezvous.py:158-216 | spaces/vision-demo/rendezvous.py:158-216 — `spaces/shared/rendezvous.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/rendezvous.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 106 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
Duplicated block (42 lines × 2) spaces/shared/wire.py:106— spaces/shared/wire.py:106-147 | spaces/vision-demo/wire.py:106-147 — `spaces/shared/wire.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/wire.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 219 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
Duplicated block (39 lines × 2) spaces/shared/wire.py:260— spaces/shared/wire.py:260-298 | spaces/vision-demo/wire.py:260-298 — `spaces/shared/wire.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/wire.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 219 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. 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 (34 lines × 2) spaces/shared/wire.py:301— spaces/shared/wire.py:301-334 | spaces/vision-demo/wire.py:301-334 — `spaces/shared/wire.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/wire.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 219 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. 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 (32 lines × 2) spaces/shared/control.py:83— spaces/shared/control.py:83-114 | spaces/vision-demo/control.py:83-114 — `spaces/shared/control.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/control.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 89 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. 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 (24 lines × 2) spaces/shared/wire.py:76— spaces/shared/wire.py:76-99 | spaces/vision-demo/wire.py:76-99 — `spaces/shared/wire.py` and `spaces/vision-demo/wire.py` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 219 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 32 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: duckctl/src/main.rs, btd/src/bluez.rs, btd/src/session.rs, updater/src/main.rs, configd/src/nm.rs, robotctl/src/show.rs, updater/src/source/github.rs, configd/src/main.rs (+24 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #2 — If anonymized user #2 becomes unavailable, 16 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: sounds/src/chorale/mod.rs, robotd/src/chorale.rs, sounds/src/stream.rs, robotctl/src/duck.rs, sounds/src/chorale/midi.rs, sounds/src/chorale/beat.rs, robotd/src/theremin.rs, sounds/src/chorale/text.rs (+8 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
Documentation: no project overview README.md— The opening paragraph is a one-line description of the project ('A tiny biped robot that moves using reinforcement learning policies.') and no overview of what it does or its role in the repository. Expand with a short 'What Microduck does' section covering its purpose, the daemons it runs, and where to find the cheat sheet.
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 23 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 9.4/10. The most over is `duck-ipc-proto` (6255 LoC, 148 public types across 1 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.
M2 · Architecture documentation· ADRs not easily discoverable · ×1
ADRs not easily discoverable — 2 ADR-shaped document(s) detected by content — `docs/design/updater-design.md`, `docs/project/ci-setup.md`. They are not under a conventional ADR folder (docs/adr/) and are not named NNNN-title.md, and this check found them by their decision signature rather than by where they live — so a reader who does not already know these paths has no route to them. Detected by content signature only: records kept outside the repository, or written without a Status/Decision/Consequences shape, are not visible to this check and are not counted here.
Logging is not universal — Only 15/20 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `duckctl`, `robotctl`, `sounds`, `spaces/hello`, `xtask`.
No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
Run 01a0eca8-5a66-7064-8c52-d93763cc1de4 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 68 · Warnings: 349 · Recommendations: 14 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 29-09-2026 @ 10:14 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.