GenieX — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

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

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

The system holds a 67% health score, placing it in the At Risk category. While the underlying code is clean and the architecture is robust, the asset carries significant operational exposure due to gaps in production readiness. This standing means the business can continue to iterate, but it does so with a heightened risk of undetected failures and slower incident resolution.

The asset is of medium size, comprising roughly 27,000 lines of production code and 8,500 lines of tests. The codebase is highly structured, with no boilerplate or simple straight-line logic, indicating a mature design. Rebuilding this system from scratch would require approximately 0.3 person-years, costing around €44,000. This relatively low rebuild cost suggests the system is not overly complex, yet the current operational fragility makes incremental improvement more valuable than a full rewrite.

The primary risk lies in Production Readiness, which scored only 60%. Without adequate observability and resilient network handling, the system is vulnerable to silent failures and prolonged outages when interacting with external services. This lack of visibility increases the cost of every defect and outage, as diagnosing issues in production becomes a manual, time-consuming effort. Additionally, the Maturity lens scored 76%, indicating that while the code is understandable, the lack of a formal changelog makes tracking changes and auditing releases difficult, posing a compliance and coordination risk.

On the positive side, the Architecture and Performance lenses are excellent, scoring 97% and 100% respectively. The code is maintainable, and the system performs well under load. These strengths provide a solid foundation for rapid feature development. However, these benefits are undermined by the operational gaps, meaning speed is not matched by reliability.

The highest-leverage action is to implement a changelog to record every release. This low-effort step immediately improves auditability and team coordination. Following this, the team should harden network calls with timeouts and retries, and extend structured logging to all modules. This focused approach addresses the most critical risks first, stabilizing operations without requiring a major engineering investment.

Code Health 88% ★ Exemplary Architecture 97% ★ Exemplary Maturity 76% Strong Readiness 60% Adequate · gated by P7 Security 61% Adequate · gated by D28, D29 Performance 100% ★ Exemplary

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

Readiness 60% · 46% weightSecurity 61% · 25% weightMaturity 76% · 14% weightCode Health 88% · 8% weightArchitecture 97% · 4% weightPerformance 100% · 2% weight

Raise Readiness 60 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 67 → ~70.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (49+)

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

D2 · miniCPM5ToolCall.feed (cognitive 18) cli/server/utils/toolcall_minicpm5.go
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py
D4 · Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 2) bindings/android/app/src/main/java/com/geniex/sdk/LlmWrapper.kt
D4 · Duplicated block (31–34 lines × 2) bindings/python/geniex/auto.py
D4 · Duplicated block (9–13 lines × 4) bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py
D4 · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go
D4 · Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) REDACTED
D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go
D4 · Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go
D4 · Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) cli/server/handler/chat.go
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) cli/server/handler/completion.go
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) REDACTED
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) cli/server/handler/completion.go
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go
D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) cli/server/handler/chat.go
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) REDACTED
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) REDACTED
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) REDACTED
D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) REDACTED
D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) cli/cmd/geniex/common/process.go
D5 · Off the main sequence: github.com/qualcomm/GenieX/bindings/go
D5 · Off the main sequence: model-manager-core
D15 · Hotspot: cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go
D15 · Hotspot: cli/cmd/geniex/model.go cli/cmd/geniex/model.go
D15 · Hotspot: cli/server/handler/chat.go cli/server/handler/chat.go
D15 · Hotspot: REDACTED REDACTED
D15 · Hotspot: sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/manifest_builder.rs sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/manifest_builder.rs
D15 · Hotspot: cli/server/handler/completion.go cli/server/handler/completion.go
D15 · Hotspot: cli/cmd/geniex/run.go cli/cmd/geniex/run.go
D15 · Hotspot: bindings/python/geniex/auto.py bindings/python/geniex/auto.py
D15 · Hotspot: cli/cmd/geniex/common/process.go cli/cmd/geniex/common/process.go
D15 · Hotspot: sdk/model-manager/crates/ffi/src/types.rs sdk/model-manager/crates/ffi/src/types.rs
D15 · Hotspot: REDACTED REDACTED
D15 · Hotspot: cli/server/utils/toolcall_minicpm5.go cli/server/utils/toolcall_minicpm5.go
D15 · Hotspot: cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go
D15 · Repeated repair: cli/server/handler/model.go cli/server/handler/model.go
D22 · Inconsistent naming and return types for path resolution. `StoreConfig` uses `model_dir` (singular, no file) and returns `PathBuf` directly. `Store` uses `model_file_path` (plural context, includes file) and returns `Result`. The `Store` also has `get_paths` which returns a `ModelPaths` struct containing `model_path` and `model_dir`, creating ambiguity about which method to use for directory vs file paths.
D22 · Three methods with overlapping intents for retrieving manifest data. `get_manifest` vs `resolve_manifest` vs `resolve_detail_manifest` are confusingly similar. It is unclear if `resolve_manifest` returns a different type or performs additional logic (like resolving symlinks or quant-specific variants) compared to `get_manifest`. The parameter names `name` vs `name_with_quant` also suggest different input requirements without clear documentation in the signature.
D22 · Redundant locking methods. `with_model_lock` and `with_model_lock_async` perform the same logical operation (acquiring a lock for a model) but differ only in async/sync nature. While this is common in Rust, having both in the public API without a clear naming convention (e.g., `with_model_lock` and `with_model_lock_async` is okay, but often `with_model_lock` is sufficient if the closure can be async) can be confusing. More importantly, `with_model_lock` takes `impl FnOnce`, while `with_model_lock_async` takes `F` (likely `Future`), which is standard, but the existence of both suggests a potential API surface bloat if one could be derived from the other via standard async traits.
D22 · Inconsistent builder pattern for source creation. `HfSource` has `with_endpoint_and_transport` which takes a `transport` explicitly, while `ModelScopeSource` has `with_endpoint` which does not take a `transport` (implying it creates its own or uses a default). This inconsistency makes it hard to predict how to configure sources with custom transports.
D30 · REDACTED
P7 · Outbound HTTP without resilience REDACTED
P7 · Outbound HTTP without resilience REDACTED
P7 · Outbound HTTP without resilience sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/dockerhub.rs
P7 · Outbound HTTP without resilience sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/modelscope.rs

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €15,000–€73,000

Cost to rebuild	€15,000–€73,000 (0.1–0.5 person-years (242–769 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.9× (at 67% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€44,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 60% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.9× 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.

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

+7.0 pts · Medium effort · Release Hygiene

Pass `timeout=` on every `requests`/`httpx` call (requests has no default and will wait forever), mount an `HTTPAdapter(max_retries=Retry(...))` on shared sessions, and wrap calls to flaky dependencies in `tenacity` retries or a `pybreaker` circuit breaker.

+7.0 pts · Medium effort · Outbound HTTP resilience

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.

+6.6 pts · Medium effort · Observability

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

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

This is a Medium asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 60%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.3 person-years rebuild (27,157 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 60%

→ 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: Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. The rest can wait behind it.

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

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

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.)

94 modules, 72 dependencies. 1 dependency cycle across 2 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 54 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 bindings.python._sdk_fetch	2 bindings.python.geniex._ffi._api	3 bindings.python.geniex._ffi._types	4 bindings.python.geniex.generation.streamer	5 bindings.python.geniex.model_manager	6 com.geniex.sdk.ModelManagerWrapper	7 com.geniex.sdk.bean	8 github.com/qualcomm/GenieX/bindings/go	9 model_manager_core.manifest	10 model_manager_core.source.ai_hub.dto	12 bindings.python.geniex.generation.output	13 com.geniex.sdk.GenieXSdk	17 com.geniex.sdk.callback	19 github.com/qualcomm/GenieX/cli/server/types	20 github.com/qualcomm/GenieX/cli/server/utils	21 model_manager_core.manifest_builder	22 model_manager_core.source	23 model_manager_core.store	25 bindings.python.geniex.modeling	26 com.geniex.sdk.jni	29 model_manager_core.pull	30 model_manager_core.source.ai_hub	36 com.geniex.sdk
1 bindings.python._sdk_fetch
2 bindings.python.geniex._ffi._api
3 bindings.python.geniex._ffi._types
4 bindings.python.geniex.generation.streamer
5 bindings.python.geniex.model_manager
6 com.geniex.sdk.ModelManagerWrapper
7 com.geniex.sdk.bean
8 github.com/qualcomm/GenieX/bindings/go
9 model_manager_core.manifest
10 model_manager_core.source.ai_hub.dto
11 bindings.python	1
12 bindings.python.geniex.generation.output			1
13 com.geniex.sdk.GenieXSdk																							1
14 com.geniex.sdk.ModelManagerWrapper.PullEvent						3	1
15 com.geniex.sdk.bean.ComputeUnitValue							4
16 com.geniex.sdk.bean.HubSource							7
17 com.geniex.sdk.callback							1
18 github.com/qualcomm/GenieX/cli/cmd/geniex/common								1
19 github.com/qualcomm/GenieX/cli/server/types								1
20 github.com/qualcomm/GenieX/cli/server/utils								2
21 model_manager_core.manifest_builder									3
22 model_manager_core.source									1
23 model_manager_core.store									4
24 model_manager_ffi.store									2
25 bindings.python.geniex.modeling				2							2
26 com.geniex.sdk.jni							19						1
27 github.com/qualcomm/GenieX/cli/server/handler								8						1	1
28 github.com/qualcomm/GenieX/cli/server/service														3	2
29 model_manager_core.pull																1		1
30 model_manager_core.source.ai_hub									2	7							1
31 model_manager_core.source.hf																1	1
32 model_manager_core.source.localfs																1	1
33 model_manager_core.source.modelscope																1	1
34 bindings.python.geniex		1	3		3						1								1
35 bindings.python.geniex.auto																			1
36 com.geniex.sdk						1	13					1								3
37 model_manager_core.query									1								1	1			1
38 model_manager_ffi.chipset																		1				1
39 com.geniex.sdk.LlmWrapper							1																1
40 com.geniex.sdk.VlmWrapper							1																1

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

At a glance — Code Health · 88% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 7.4 D3 · Rust God Classes 8.8 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.4 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 10.0

The Bad

D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 5.9

At a glance — Architecture · 97% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · Rust Coupling 8.0 D6 · Rust Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D22 · Rust Internal API Consistency 7.0 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 9.7 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.9 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 76% · Strong ·

The Good

D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.7 D16 · Rust Bus Factor 8.9 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 7.6 D21 · Rust Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 9.9 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.4 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Bad

M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 5.0

The Ugly

D20 · Rust ADR Quality 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 60% · Adequate · gated by P7 ·

The Good

D9 · Rust Test Distribution 10.0 D11 · Rust Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · Rust Dependency Hygiene 8.7 D13 · Rust REDACTED Scanning 10.0 D14 · Rust License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 6.6 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 8.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0

The Bad

P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

The Ugly

P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0

At a glance — Security · 61% · Adequate · gated by D28, D29 ·

The Good

D31 · Rust IaC & Container Security 8.5 D37 · Rust Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 10.0 D43 · Rust Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Rust Platform End-of-Life 10.0

The Bad

D30 · Rust Dependency Vulnerabilities 5.6 D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 5.0

The Ugly

D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 0.0 D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 0.0

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2021 — Injection	267	High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures	20	High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	13	High / Critical
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration	6	High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by establishing release hygiene through a maintained changelog and securing outbound HTTP calls with timeouts, retries, and circuit breakers to prevent indefinite waits. Simultaneously, extend structured logging across all runnable modules to ensure full production diagnosability and address the 19 historical secret findings, prioritizing the largest affected files. Finally, expand Dependabot coverage to include all package ecosystems such as cargo, gomod, pip, maven, and gradle to ensure consistent dependency monitoring and automatic updates.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.	+7.0 pts	Medium	Release Hygiene
Pass `timeout=` on every `requests`/`httpx` call (requests has no default and will wait forever), mount an `HTTPAdapter(max_retries=Retry(...))` on shared sessions, and wrap calls to flaky dependencies in `tenacity` retries or a `pybreaker` circuit breaker.	+7.0 pts	Medium	Outbound HTTP resilience
Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.	+6.6 pts	Medium	Observability
Dependabot is configured but does not watch `cargo`, `gomod`, `pip`, `maven`, `gradle`, `gitsubmodule` — add those `package-ecosystem` entries to .github/dependabot.yml so those dependencies get the same automatic update and advisory pressure as the ones it already covers.	+5.0 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+2.4 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Resolve the 19 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (16), REDACTED (2), REDACTED.	+3.0 pts	Medium	Secrets (history)
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.	+2.4 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).	+2.4 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 79 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 5% slop · 33% mixed · 62% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	1.7	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.4	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.5	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.0	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.5	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.6	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.6	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.6	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.6	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED

How the grades work

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

Critical — 153

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 — 157

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 — 159

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. 39 of 43 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 1.0 — 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 — 43 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D19D20D21D22D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D37D43D44AX10AX3AX4AX9M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6P7PF3

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, 435 of 469 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0ec72-f3ac-77eb-8df8-bf407e334d2d.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.go, .py, .rs) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`, or `coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`, or 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 (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`, or `coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`, or 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.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a Go module (REDACTED/go.sum), but the licence verdict published here was taken over its crate dependencies. Nothing was read about its Go dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D26 Project Cohesion — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Project size and spread are measured over build units (a .NET project, a Maven or Gradle module, an npm package, a Go module, a Cargo crate, a Python, Composer, Bundler, Mix, rebar3, sbt, SwiftPM or pub package) whose source a code model reads. This repository's production source is in a language no model reads, or in units whose build tool D26 does not recognise. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository's projects are cohesive.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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. `cli/server/docs/ui/swagger-ui-es-bundle-core.js`, `cli/server/docs/ui/swagger-ui.js` produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX2 Stateful singletons — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P10 Library API & versioning — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads NuGet packaging and C# public API only, and no .NET project was loaded for this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
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.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (REDACTED, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D22, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity7.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

23 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was model_manager_core::source::ai_hub::remote_zip::fetch_central_directory at 30. A further 2 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being model_manager_core::gguf::ftype_name at 37 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 2 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/gguf.rs (model_manager_core::gguf::ftype_name at 37), sdk/model-manager/crates/ffi/src/types.rs (model_manager_ffi::types::err_to_code at 17). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

model_manager_core::source::ai_hub::remote_zip::fetch_central_directory (cyclomatic 30) · ×5sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/ai_hub/remote_zip.rs:79

main.pullModel (cyclomatic 28)cli/cmd/geniex/model.go:429

utils.SaveURIToTempFile (cyclomatic 26)REDACTED:22

Repl.GetPrompt (cyclomatic 25)cli/cmd/geniex/common/repl.go:38

main.inferLLM (cyclomatic 24)cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go:350

+ 14 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 5 model_manager_core finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with manifest_builder.rs (2), remote_zip.rs, dockerhub.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 main.pullModel (cyclomatic 28) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with model.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 utils.SaveURIToTempFile (cyclomatic 26) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity5.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

35 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was model_manager_core::source::ai_hub::remote_zip::fetch_central_directory at 50.

model_manager_core::source::ai_hub::remote_zip::fetch_central_directory (cognitive 50) · ×7sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/ai_hub/remote_zip.rs:79

Repl.GetPrompt (cognitive 45)cli/cmd/geniex/common/repl.go:38

handler.buildVLMMessages (cognitive 42)cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:161

main.pullModel (cognitive 39)cli/cmd/geniex/model.go:429

utils.SaveURIToTempFile (cognitive 36)REDACTED:22

+ 24 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 7 model_manager_core finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with manifest_builder.rs (3), remote_zip.rs, localfs.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Repl.GetPrompt (cognitive 45) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with repl.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 handler.buildVLMMessages (cognitive 42) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with chat_messages.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God 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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

FunctionTooLong: model_manager_core::source::ai_hub::remote_zip::fetch_central_directory · ×5sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/ai_hub/remote_zip.rs:79

FileTooLong: executor/mod.rs · ×2sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/mod.rs

MethodTooLong: ModelScopeSource.plansdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/modelscope.rs:176

What to do

Resolve the 5 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with infer.go (2), remote_zip.rs, run.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with mod.rs, modeling.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with modelscope.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.4 / 10Stronggated by 34 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

33 duplicated block group(s) detected. One further row reports members as variants of one another; it aggregates block groups already counted above and is not itself counted.

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×6sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/localfs.rs:157

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×5sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/hf.rs:182

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×3sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/transport.rs:163

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×3bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:158

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:269

+ 16 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with localfs.rs, hf.rs, modeling.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with hf.rs, mod.rs, completion.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with transport.rs, mod.rs, process.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

8 production modules (Gradle+Maven+Cargo+Go+Python), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; edges a convention plugin adds from buildSrc or build-logic are not visible there; 2 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 6 of the 8 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, or have no source directory of their own).

Off the main sequence: github.com/qualcomm/GenieX/bindings/go · ×2

What to do

Resolve the 2 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

0 of 11 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_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.

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

480 test methods: 447 unit, 33 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 258 `#[test]` function(s) across 31 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 10 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test. The Python suite contributes 131 test function(s) across 16 file(s) declaring at least one — every `def test…` in a file pytest or unittest would collect, which is those frameworks' own definition of a case; a parametrize table counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is read from file names and paths only. The Go suite contributes 91 test case(s) across 32 `_test.go` file(s) declaring at least one — every `func Test…(t *testing.T)` that `go test` would collect, plus the suite methods a testify-style runner reaches; a table-driven case list counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is INFERRED from file names, paths and build constraints, not declared: 0 of those file(s) use Go's external test package (`package x_test`), which is a visibility boundary rather than a pyramid tier and was not read as one.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.

Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.

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

0 flaky across 2 measured tier(s). Go (2 modules): measured (0 flaky); Rust (sdk/model-manager, 31 test files): measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene~~9.2~~ 8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 95% · ceiling Verified

16 outdated, 0 author-deprecated direct Go module(s), 0 pinning or checksum defect(s). 20 of 20 direct requirement(s) were graded against proxy.golang.org (0 not served there, 1 publishing no tagged release to be behind). Whether any of these modules is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — proxy.golang.org publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: that is a source question, not a registry one. Known CVEs in this module graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED and go.sum there.

Outdated: github.com/bytedance/sonic · ×16

What to do

Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

REDACTED scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 216 shipped crate(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from crates.io over the crates a consumer compiles — this repository's REDACTED closed over its manifests' `[dependencies]` and `[build-dependencies]`. Crates it asks for ONLY under `[dev-dependencies]` are excluded: they are not compiled by anything that depends on this repository. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's crate dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Go module (REDACTED/go.sum), and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.7 / 10Stronggated by 14 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Top hotspots: cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go (40×24=960); cli/cmd/geniex/model.go (20×28=560); cli/server/handler/chat.go (29×17=493) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: cli/server/handler/model.go (4 of 6 changes were fixes)

Hotspot: cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go · ×13cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go:350

Repeated repair: cli/server/handler/model.gocli/server/handler/model.go:46

What to do

Resolve the 13 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with infer.go, model.go, chat.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with model.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

10 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/mod.rs. Counted over 94 of the 169 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 · ×3

What to do

Resolve the 3 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Stronggated by 6 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

6 deducted task-comment markers across 27157 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×4bindings/android/app/src/main/java/com/geniex/sdk/VlmWrapper.kt:133

FixmeComment · ×2bindings/android/app/src/main/java/com/geniex/sdk/VlmWrapper.kt:129

What to do

Resolve the 4 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with VlmWrapper.kt, LlmWrapper.kt, history.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with VlmWrapper.kt, LlmWrapper.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README is a clear, well-structured overview of GenieX as an on-device AI inference runtime for Qualcomm devices (Hexagon NPU/Adreno/GPU/CPU), covering supported platforms, the CLI, Python SDK, C ABI, and the three distributions. It also links to detailed architecture docs (docs/, sdk/, tests/) and a separate self-signed HTP signing cert README. The per-directory READMEs document their own directories (cli/, docs/, notes/, sdk/, tests/), each with its own focused content; none is flagged as missing because it documents only that directory. The repository's READMEs are mostly throwaway example directories; the only non-example document is a thin HTML Swagger UI landing page for the server API. The two architecture/Docs markdown files (bench_pull and oauth2-redirect) describe test harnesses that are not part of the library but serve as documentation, so they fall under the 'internal-focused' category rather than being gaps in the project's overview.

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.6/10. — The repository's root README is a clear, well-structured overview of GenieX as an on-device AI inference runtime for Qualcomm devices (Hexagon NPU/Adreno/GPU/CPU), covering supported platforms, the CLI, Python SDK, C ABI, and the three distributions. It also links to detailed architecture docs (docs/, sdk/, tests/) and a separate self-signed HTP signing cert README. The per-directory READMEs document their own directories (cli/, docs/, notes/, sdk/, tests/), each with its own focused content; none is flagged as missing because it documents only that directory. The repository's READMEs are mostly throwaway example directories; the only non-example document is a thin HTML Swagger UI landing page for the server API. The two architecture/Docs markdown files (bench_pull and oauth2-redirect) describe test harnesses that are not part of the library but serve as documentation, so they fall under the 'internal-focused' category rather than being gaps in the project's overview.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

4 API inconsistencies across 69 exposed types.

Inconsistent naming and return types for path resolution. `StoreConfig` uses `model_dir` (singular, no file) and returns `PathBuf` directly. `Store` uses `model_file_path` (plural context, includes file) and returns `Result`. The `Store` also has `get_paths` which returns a `ModelPaths` struct containing `model_path` and `model_dir`, creating ambiguity about which method to use for directory vs file paths.

Three methods with overlapping intents for retrieving manifest data. `get_manifest` vs `resolve_manifest` vs `resolve_detail_manifest` are confusingly similar. It is unclear if `resolve_manifest` returns a different type or performs additional logic (like resolving symlinks or quant-specific variants) compared to `get_manifest`. The parameter names `name` vs `name_with_quant` also suggest different input requirements without clear documentation in the signature.

Redundant locking methods. `with_model_lock` and `with_model_lock_async` perform the same logical operation (acquiring a lock for a model) but differ only in async/sync nature. While this is common in Rust, having both in the public API without a clear naming convention (e.g., `with_model_lock` and `with_model_lock_async` is okay, but often `with_model_lock` is sufficient if the closure can be async) can be confusing. More importantly, `with_model_lock` takes `impl FnOnce`, while `with_model_lock_async` takes `F` (likely `Future`), which is standard, but the existence of both suggests a potential API surface bloat if one could be derived from the other via standard async traits.

Inconsistent builder pattern for source creation. `HfSource` has `with_endpoint_and_transport` which takes a `transport` explicitly, while `ModelScopeSource` has `with_endpoint` which does not take a `transport` (implying it creates its own or uses a default). This inconsistency makes it hard to predict how to configure sources with custom transports.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming and return types for path resolution. `StoreConfig`… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Three methods with overlapping intents for retrieving manifest data.… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Redundant locking methods. `with_model_lock` and `with_model_lock_async`… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

19 finding(s): 0 critical, 19 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 19 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (16), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

267 finding(s): 0 critical, 127 high, 7 medium, 133 low. 92 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 13 file(s) — `bindings/android/gradlew` (line 74, line 178), `cli/server/docs/ui/swagger-ui-es-bundle-core.js`, `cli/server/docs/ui/swagger-ui-standalone-preset.js`, `cli/server/docs/ui/swagger-ui.js`, `sdk/include/external/date.h`, … (+8 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 4 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

+ 9 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 22 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (11), REDACTED (5), REDACTED (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (22 issue-level).
Resolve the 6 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 91 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 (91 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities5.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

13 finding(s): 1 critical, 2 high, 10 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 5 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security8.5 / 10Adequategated by 4 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

6 finding(s): 0 critical, 4 high, 2 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

1 of 94 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is cli/internal/readline/action.go. Counted over 94 of the 169 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned files with no living knowledge

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.7 / 10Stronggated by 4 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: chat.go↔logits.go 91%; completion.go↔logits.go 82%; REDACTED↔__init__.py 60%

Change coupling: chat.go ↔ logits.go · ×4cli/server/handler/chat.go

What to do

Resolve the 4 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with chat.go, completion.go, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.

Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.

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

A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 3 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.

AX10 · Code composition9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)7.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 5 of 8 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.3 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability6.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 6/7 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `.`.

What to do

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (@opentelemetry/sdk-node) and a health-check endpoint (@godaddy/terminus or a /health route) for operability.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

What to do

Dependabot is configured but does not watch `cargo`, `gomod`, `pip`, `maven`, `gradle`, `gitsubmodule` — add those `package-ecosystem` entries to .github/dependabot.yml so those dependencies get the same automatic update and advisory pressure as the ones it already covers.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

`urllib.request.urlopen(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. 4 of the 6 files that make outbound calls are unbounded; the first 4 are listed. — REDACTED:99
`http.Get(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. — REDACTED:36
`Client::builder()` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. (×2) — sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/dockerhub.rs:123, sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/modelscope.rs:68

What to do

Pass `timeout=` on every `requests`/`httpx` call (requests has no default and will wait forever), mount an `HTTPAdapter(max_retries=Retry(...))` on shared sessions, and wrap calls to flaky dependencies in `tenacity` retries or a `pybreaker` circuit breaker.
Give every `http.Client` an explicit `Timeout` (never call `http.Get`/`http.Post` or `http.DefaultClient`, which have none), or build each request with `http.NewRequestWithContext` under a `context.WithTimeout`; add retry with back-off (`hashicorp/go-retryablehttp`) and a breaker (`sony/gobreaker`) around dependencies that fail.
Give every client a whole-request bound: `reqwest::Client::builder().timeout(Duration::from_secs(10))` (never `reqwest::get` or `Client::new()`, which have none), ureq's `timeout_global`, or wrap the call in `tokio::time::timeout`; add retry with back-off (`reqwest-retry`'s `RetryTransientMiddleware`, `backoff`) around dependencies that fail.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	88%	Exemplary	Solid.
Architecture	97%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	76%	Strong	Solid.
Readiness	60%	Adequate — gated by P7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	61%	Adequate — gated by D28, D29	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.

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

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

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

Not included — 74 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX2 Stateful singletons — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — docker build failed (exit 127) — 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 — ~8463 lines of test source are present (.go, .py, .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.
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D26 Project Cohesion — D26 measured no build unit over this repository's .c, .cpp, .go, .kt, .py source. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D27 Navigability — D27 reads resolved call sites in the languages it reads only — this repository's production source is .c, .cpp, .go, .kt, .py, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 2 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 signals for this style, 2 needed — the count is met but a required primary signal is absent): 31 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.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P10 Library API & versioning — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
PF2 Allocation hygiene — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
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.

Critical — 153 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 66 more in this group — see findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

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

D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×19

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

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×4

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×1

REDACTED

Serious — 157 finding(s)

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×13

Hotspot: cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go:350 — cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go changed 40 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 24 in main.inferLLM at line 350. 11 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 29 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 17:34:19 +08:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:34:19 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go`: 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: cli/cmd/geniex/model.go cli/cmd/geniex/model.go:429 — cli/cmd/geniex/model.go changed 20 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 28 in main.pullModel at line 429. 8 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 12 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 17:34:19 +08:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:34:19 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- cli/cmd/geniex/model.go`: 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: cli/server/handler/chat.go cli/server/handler/chat.go:269 — cli/server/handler/chat.go changed 29 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in handler.runChat at line 269. 13 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 16 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 17:34:19 +08:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:34:19 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- cli/server/handler/chat.go`: 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: REDACTED REDACTED:932 — REDACTED changed 14 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 34 in run_qdc_jobs.main at line 932. 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 9 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 17:34:19 +08:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:34:19 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- REDACTED`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/manifest_builder.rs sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/manifest_builder.rs:56 — sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/manifest_builder.rs changed 11 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 21 in model_manager_core::manifest_builder::infer_manifest_from_names at line 56. 7 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:34:19 +08:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:34:19 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/manifest_builder.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: cli/server/handler/completion.go cli/server/handler/completion.go:106 — cli/server/handler/completion.go changed 12 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 19 in handler.Completions at line 106. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 9 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 17:34:19 +08:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:34:19 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- cli/server/handler/completion.go`: 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: cli/cmd/geniex/run.go cli/cmd/geniex/run.go:97 — cli/cmd/geniex/run.go changed 10 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in main.runCompletions at line 97. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 7 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 17:34:19 +08:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:34:19 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- cli/cmd/geniex/run.go`: 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: bindings/python/geniex/auto.py bindings/python/geniex/auto.py:384 — bindings/python/geniex/auto.py changed 10 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained at line 384. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 7 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 17:34:19 +08:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:34:19 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- bindings/python/geniex/auto.py`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: cli/cmd/geniex/common/process.go cli/cmd/geniex/common/process.go:42 — cli/cmd/geniex/common/process.go changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 19 in Processor.Process at line 42. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 5 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 17:34:19 +08:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:34:19 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- cli/cmd/geniex/common/process.go`: 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: sdk/model-manager/crates/ffi/src/types.rs sdk/model-manager/crates/ffi/src/types.rs:67 — sdk/model-manager/crates/ffi/src/types.rs changed 6 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in model_manager_ffi::types::err_to_code at line 67. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 5 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 17:34:19 +08:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:34:19 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- sdk/model-manager/crates/ffi/src/types.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: REDACTED REDACTED:65 — REDACTED changed 6 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in main.runUpdate at line 65. 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 17:34:19 +08:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:34:19 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- REDACTED`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: cli/server/utils/toolcall_minicpm5.go cli/server/utils/toolcall_minicpm5.go:41 — cli/server/utils/toolcall_minicpm5.go changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in miniCPM5ToolCall.feed at line 41. 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 17:34:19 +08:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:34:19 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- cli/server/utils/toolcall_minicpm5.go`: 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: cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:161 — cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 19 in handler.buildVLMMessages at line 161. 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 17:34:19 +08:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:34:19 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · model_manager_core · ×7

model_manager_core::source::ai_hub::remote_zip::fetch_central_directory (cognitive 50) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/ai_hub/remote_zip.rs:79 — model_manager_core::source::ai_hub::remote_zip::fetch_central_directory has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (39 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 3 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
model_manager_core::manifest_builder::extract_quant (cognitive 30) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/manifest_builder.rs:370 — model_manager_core::manifest_builder::extract_quant has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (20 pts), loops 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 4 (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.
model_manager_core::manifest_builder::infer_manifest_from_names (cognitive 24) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/manifest_builder.rs:56 — model_manager_core::manifest_builder::infer_manifest_from_names has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (18 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2, match/switch 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.
model_manager_core::source::localfs::detect_local_kind (cognitive 20) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/localfs.rs:49 — model_manager_core::source::localfs::detect_local_kind has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (18 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 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.
model_manager_core::source::dockerhub::build_plan (cognitive 18) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/dockerhub.rs:367 — model_manager_core::source::dockerhub::build_plan has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, loops 3, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
model_manager_core::executor::download_range_based (cognitive 18) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/mod.rs:481 — model_manager_core::executor::download_range_based has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (11 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), loops 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
model_manager_core::manifest_builder::classify_from_config (cognitive 17) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/manifest_builder.rs:264 — model_manager_core::manifest_builder::classify_from_config has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), loops 3 (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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×6

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/localfs.rs:157 — sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/localfs.rs:157-164 | sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/localfs.rs:234-241 — 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) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/hf.rs:230 — sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/hf.rs:230-237 | sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/modelscope.rs:324-331 — before extracting anything, compare `sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/hf.rs` and `sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/modelscope.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 53 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:164 — bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:164-171 | bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:478-485 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) REDACTED:92 — REDACTED:92-100 | cli/server/handler/completion.go:285-292 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:92` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:209 — cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:209-216 | cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:258-265 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:209` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) REDACTED:232 — REDACTED:232-239 | REDACTED:179-186 — 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · model_manager_core · ×5

model_manager_core::source::ai_hub::remote_zip::fetch_central_directory (cyclomatic 30) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/ai_hub/remote_zip.rs:79 — model_manager_core::source::ai_hub::remote_zip::fetch_central_directory has cyclomatic complexity 30 (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.
model_manager_core::manifest_builder::infer_manifest_from_names (cyclomatic 21) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/manifest_builder.rs:56 — model_manager_core::manifest_builder::infer_manifest_from_names 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.
model_manager_core::source::dockerhub::build_plan (cyclomatic 18) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/dockerhub.rs:367 — model_manager_core::source::dockerhub::build_plan 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.
model_manager_core::manifest_builder::extract_quant (cyclomatic 18) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/manifest_builder.rs:370 — model_manager_core::manifest_builder::extract_quant has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
model_manager_core::source::localfs::detect_local_kind (cyclomatic 16) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/localfs.rs:49 — model_manager_core::source::localfs::detect_local_kind 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.

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×5

FunctionTooLong: model_manager_core::source::ai_hub::remote_zip::fetch_central_directory sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/ai_hub/remote_zip.rs:79 — FunctionTooLong — model_manager_core::source::ai_hub::remote_zip::fetch_central_directory runs 140 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 40 over it, 1.40× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: main.inferLLM cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go:350 — FunctionTooLong — inferLLM runs 123 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 23 over it, 1.23× 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: main.runCompletions cli/cmd/geniex/run.go:97 — FunctionTooLong — runCompletions runs 121 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 21 over it, 1.21× 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: main.inferVLM cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go:533 — FunctionTooLong — inferVLM runs 115 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) 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.
FunctionTooLong: model_manager_core::source::dockerhub::build_plan sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/dockerhub.rs:367 — FunctionTooLong — model_manager_core::source::dockerhub::build_plan 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.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/hf.rs:182 — sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/hf.rs:182-190 | sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/modelscope.rs:272-280 — before extracting anything, compare `sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/hf.rs` and `sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/modelscope.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 53 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/mod.rs:389 — sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/mod.rs:389-397 | sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/mod.rs:448-458 — 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) cli/server/handler/completion.go:133 — cli/server/handler/completion.go:133-141 | cli/server/handler/logits.go:81-89 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cli/server/handler/completion.go:133` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go:127 — cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go:127-135 | cli/cmd/geniex/run.go:63-71 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go:127` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) REDACTED:148 — REDACTED:148-156 | REDACTED:237-245 — 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×4

TodoComment bindings/android/app/src/main/java/com/geniex/sdk/VlmWrapper.kt:133 — // TODO: handle the returned error code. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment bindings/android/app/src/main/java/com/geniex/sdk/LlmWrapper.kt:101 — // TODO: handle the returned error code. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment cli/internal/readline/history.go:6 — // TODO: implement history persistence — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment cli/server/service/keepalive.go:202 — // TODO: unload model due to free ram/vram — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability · ×4

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×4

Change coupling: chat.go ↔ logits.go cli/server/handler/chat.go — `cli/server/handler/chat.go` and `cli/server/handler/logits.go` change together 91% of the time (10 of the 11 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). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 10 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `f3480a75` feat(cli): add --power-mode to infer, run, and serve; `4032316e` feat(sdk): add VLM compute device override; `595b19d7` fix(server): replay VLM media after auto-reset — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: completion.go ↔ logits.go cli/server/handler/completion.go — `cli/server/handler/completion.go` and `cli/server/handler/logits.go` change together 82% of the time (9 of the 11 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). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `f3480a75` feat(cli): add --power-mode to infer, run, and serve; `4032316e` feat(sdk): add VLM compute device override; `595b19d7` fix(server): replay VLM media after auto-reset — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: REDACTED ↔ __init__.py REDACTED — `REDACTED` and `bindings/python/geniex/__init__.py` change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 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) and are written in DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, so no import can join them and they cannot be co-located into one unit — they compile and ship as separate artifacts. What binds them is a CONTRACT across that boundary — an event or message name, a route, a serialised shape — that each side currently spells out on its own, which is exactly why a change to one drags the other. Declare that contract once where both sides read it (a shared schema, a generated constants file, an interface-definition file) so a change on one side fails the other's build instead of drifting silently; where the surface is too small to be worth that, name the counterpart in a comment on both sides so the next reader finds it. There is nothing here to merge. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `e142bd02` feat(bindings): expose the QAIRT runtime path in Go, Python and Android; `e23632bb` revert(qairt): drop the QAIRT-runtime-path C API and its downstream w…; `467ffbe3` feat(bindings): expose the QAIRT runtime path in Go, Python and Android — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: GenieXSdk.kt ↔ __init__.py bindings/android/app/src/main/java/com/geniex/sdk/GenieXSdk.kt — `bindings/android/app/src/main/java/com/geniex/sdk/GenieXSdk.kt` and `bindings/python/geniex/__init__.py` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 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) and are written in DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, so no import can join them and they cannot be co-located into one unit — they compile and ship as separate artifacts. What binds them is a CONTRACT across that boundary — an event or message name, a route, a serialised shape — that each side currently spells out on its own, which is exactly why a change to one drags the other. Declare that contract once where both sides read it (a shared schema, a generated constants file, an interface-definition file) so a change on one side fails the other's build instead of drifting silently; where the surface is too small to be worth that, name the counterpart in a comment on both sides so the next reader finds it. There is nothing here to merge. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `e142bd02` feat(bindings): expose the QAIRT runtime path in Go, Python and Android; `e23632bb` revert(qairt): drop the QAIRT-runtime-path C API and its downstream w…; `467ffbe3` feat(bindings): expose the QAIRT runtime path in Go, Python and Android — run `git show` on any of them.

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

Outbound HTTP without resilience REDACTED:99 — `urllib.request.urlopen(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. 4 of the 6 files that make outbound calls are unbounded; the first 4 are listed.
Outbound HTTP without resilience REDACTED:36 — `http.Get(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.
Outbound HTTP without resilience sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/dockerhub.rs:123 — `Client::builder()` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.
Outbound HTTP without resilience sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/modelscope.rs:68 — `Client::builder()` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/transport.rs:163 — sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/transport.rs:163-169 | sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/transport.rs:234-240 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/mod.rs:442 — sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/mod.rs:442-448 | sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/mod.rs:702-708 — 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) cli/cmd/geniex/common/process.go:126 — cli/cmd/geniex/common/process.go:126-132 | cli/cmd/geniex/common/process.go:135-141 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:158 — bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:158-163 | bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:472-477 — 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) cli/server/handler/completion.go:126 — cli/server/handler/completion.go:126-131 | cli/server/handler/logits.go:74-79 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cli/server/handler/completion.go:126` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:220 — cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:220-225 | cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:237-242 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:220` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×2

FixmeComment bindings/android/app/src/main/java/com/geniex/sdk/VlmWrapper.kt:129 — // FIXME: result is null here when a callback is supplied. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment bindings/android/app/src/main/java/com/geniex/sdk/LlmWrapper.kt:97 — // FIXME: result is null here when a callback is supplied. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

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

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED
REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×2

FileTooLong: executor/mod.rs sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/mod.rs — FileTooLong — 548 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 48 over it, 1.10× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: geniex/modeling.py bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py — FileTooLong — 508 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 8 over it, 1.02× 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.

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

REDACTED
REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×2

Off the main sequence: github.com/qualcomm/GenieX/bindings/go — github.com/qualcomm/GenieX/bindings/go: 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: model-manager-core — model-manager-core: abstractness 0.03, instability 0.00, distance 0.97 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · main.pullModel (cyclomatic 28) · ×1

main.pullModel (cyclomatic 28) cli/cmd/geniex/model.go:429 — main.pullModel has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). Of this number, 25 points are the body's own statements and 3 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · utils.SaveURIToTempFile (cyclomatic 26) · ×1

utils.SaveURIToTempFile (cyclomatic 26) REDACTED:22 — utils.SaveURIToTempFile 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Repl.GetPrompt (cyclomatic 25) · ×1

Repl.GetPrompt (cyclomatic 25) cli/cmd/geniex/common/repl.go:38 — Repl.GetPrompt has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · main.inferLLM (cyclomatic 24) · ×1

main.inferLLM (cyclomatic 24) cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go:350 — main.inferLLM has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · main.inferVLM (cyclomatic 23) · ×1

main.inferVLM (cyclomatic 23) cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go:533 — main.inferVLM has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 10 of the 23 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 609, 677, 602). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ModelScopeSource · ×1

ModelScopeSource::plan (cyclomatic 21) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/modelscope.rs:176 — ModelScopeSource::plan has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · cli._cmd_ls (cyclomatic 21) · ×1

cli._cmd_ls (cyclomatic 21) bindings/python/geniex/cli.py:424 — cli._cmd_ls has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Processor.Process (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

Processor.Process (cyclomatic 19) cli/cmd/geniex/common/process.go:42 — Processor.Process has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · handler.buildVLMMessages (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

handler.buildVLMMessages (cyclomatic 19) cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:161 — handler.buildVLMMessages has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · handler.Completions (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

handler.Completions (cyclomatic 19) cli/server/handler/completion.go:106 — handler.Completions has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · main.runCompletions (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

main.runCompletions (cyclomatic 18) cli/cmd/geniex/run.go:97 — main.runCompletions has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 18 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 146). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · LocalFsSource · ×1

LocalFsSource::plan_hf_gguf (cyclomatic 17) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/localfs.rs:154 — LocalFsSource::plan_hf_gguf has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · HTTPDownloader.DownloadChunk (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

HTTPDownloader.DownloadChunk (cyclomatic 17) cli/internal/downloader/http.go:63 — HTTPDownloader.DownloadChunk has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · handler.runChat (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

handler.runChat (cyclomatic 17) cli/server/handler/chat.go:269 — handler.runChat has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). 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, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · utils.SessionKeyOfVLMRequest (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

utils.SessionKeyOfVLMRequest (cyclomatic 17) cli/server/utils/hash.go:101 — utils.SessionKeyOfVLMRequest has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 17 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 102). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · utils.parseLFM2Value (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

utils.parseLFM2Value (cyclomatic 17) cli/server/utils/toolcall_lfm2.go:116 — utils.parseLFM2Value has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · HfSource · ×1

HfSource::plan (cyclomatic 16) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/hf.rs:129 — HfSource::plan 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained (cyclomatic 16) bindings/python/geniex/auto.py:384 — AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained 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.

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

Repeated repair: cli/server/handler/model.go cli/server/handler/model.go:46 — cli/server/handler/model.go changed 6 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 6 (its worst body is handler.RetrieveModel at line 46), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(server): advertise the N/A precision instead of hiding it”; “fix(server): advertise the precision a bare model name actually loads”; “fix(cli): let the server report the model type to `geniex run`”; “fix(server): resolve model names through the SDK in RetrieveModel”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 17:34:19 +08:00' --until='2026-09-28 17:34:19 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- cli/server/handler/model.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Repl.GetPrompt (cognitive 45) · ×1

Repl.GetPrompt (cognitive 45) cli/cmd/geniex/common/repl.go:38 — Repl.GetPrompt has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (36 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 26). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · handler.buildVLMMessages (cognitive 42) · ×1

handler.buildVLMMessages (cognitive 42) cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:161 — handler.buildVLMMessages has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (22 pts), loops 4 (10 pts), match/switch 3 (10 pts) (nesting depth added 29). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · main.pullModel (cognitive 39) · ×1

main.pullModel (cognitive 39) cli/cmd/geniex/model.go:429 — main.pullModel has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (35 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). Of this number, 35 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · utils.SaveURIToTempFile (cognitive 36) · ×1

utils.SaveURIToTempFile (cognitive 36) REDACTED:22 — utils.SaveURIToTempFile has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (29 pts), boolean chains 6, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Processor.Process (cognitive 35) · ×1

Processor.Process (cognitive 35) cli/cmd/geniex/common/process.go:42 — Processor.Process has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (31 pts), loops 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 20). Of this number, 32 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · main.inferLLM (cognitive 35) · ×1

main.inferLLM (cognitive 35) cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go:350 — main.inferLLM has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (31 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 10). Of this number, 24 points are the body's own statements and 11 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ModelScopeSource · ×1

ModelScopeSource::plan (cognitive 34) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/modelscope.rs:176 — ModelScopeSource::plan has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 pts), match/switch 5 (12 pts), loops 3, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HTTPDownloader.DownloadChunk (cognitive 33) · ×1

HTTPDownloader.DownloadChunk (cognitive 33) cli/internal/downloader/http.go:63 — HTTPDownloader.DownloadChunk has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · main.inferVLM (cognitive 30) · ×1

main.inferVLM (cognitive 30) cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go:533 — main.inferVLM has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (25 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 2 (nesting depth added 7). Most of this is not in the body itself: 11 of the 30 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 609, 677, 602). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LocalFsSource · ×1

LocalFsSource::plan_hf_gguf (cognitive 28) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/localfs.rs:154 — LocalFsSource::plan_hf_gguf has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (21 pts), loops 4 (5 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · handler.buildLLMMessages (cognitive 27) · ×1

handler.buildLLMMessages (cognitive 27) cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:82 — handler.buildLLMMessages has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 4 (10 pts), match/switch 3 (10 pts), if/else 3 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · cli._cmd_ls (cognitive 26) · ×1

cli._cmd_ls (cognitive 26) bindings/python/geniex/cli.py:424 — cli._cmd_ls has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 11, if/else 4 (6 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), ternaries 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · main.runCompletions (cognitive 26) · ×1

main.runCompletions (cognitive 26) cli/cmd/geniex/run.go:97 — main.runCompletions has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (19 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 7). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 26 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 146). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · handler.runChat (cognitive 25) · ×1

handler.runChat (cognitive 25) cli/server/handler/chat.go:269 — handler.runChat has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (20 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). Of this number, 23 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · handler.Completions (cognitive 24) · ×1

handler.Completions (cognitive 24) cli/server/handler/completion.go:106 — handler.Completions has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (19 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 5). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ReqwestTransport · ×1

ReqwestTransport::get_range (cognitive 23) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/transport.rs:211 — ReqwestTransport::get_range has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HfSource · ×1

HfSource::plan (cognitive 22) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/hf.rs:129 — HfSource::plan has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), loops 3, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Readline.parse (cognitive 21) · ×1

Readline.parse (cognitive 21) cli/internal/readline/readline.go:79 — Readline.parse has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (18 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Store · ×1

Store::list (cognitive 20) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/store.rs:97 — Store::list has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · service.keepAliveGet (cognitive 20) · ×1

service.keepAliveGet (cognitive 20) cli/server/service/keepalive.go:177 — service.keepAliveGet has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (17 pts), boolean chains 2, 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · utils.SessionKeyOfVLMRequest (cognitive 20) · ×1

utils.SessionKeyOfVLMRequest (cognitive 20) cli/server/utils/hash.go:101 — utils.SessionKeyOfVLMRequest has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 9). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 20 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 102). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Executor · ×1

Executor::run (cognitive 19) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/mod.rs:143 — Executor::run has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (12 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · cli._run_turn (cognitive 18) · ×1

cli._run_turn (cognitive 18) bindings/python/geniex/cli.py:159 — cli._run_turn has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 4 (7 pts), if/else 5 (6 pts), error handling 2 (3 pts), 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · miniCPM5ToolCall.feed (cognitive 18) · ×1

miniCPM5ToolCall.feed (cognitive 18) cli/server/utils/toolcall_minicpm5.go:41 — miniCPM5ToolCall.feed has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (12 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · _lib.load_library (cognitive 17) · ×1

_lib.load_library (cognitive 17) bindings/python/geniex/_ffi/_lib.py:135 — _lib.load_library has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 2, error handling 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · _sdk_fetch._fetch (cognitive 16) · ×1

_sdk_fetch._fetch (cognitive 16) REDACTED:161 — _sdk_fetch._fetch has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (9 pts), ternaries 4, boolean chains 2, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · auto._resolve_model_sources (cognitive 16) · ×1

auto._resolve_model_sources (cognitive 16) bindings/python/geniex/auto.py:156 — auto._resolve_model_sources has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (8 pts), ternaries 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, error handling 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Processor.printProfile (cognitive 16) · ×1

Processor.printProfile (cognitive 16) cli/cmd/geniex/common/process.go:229 — Processor.printProfile has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 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.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent naming and return types for path resolution. `StoreConfig` uses `model_dir` (singular, no file) and returns `PathBuf` directly. `Store` uses `model_file_path` (plural context, includes file) and returns `Result`. The `Store` also has `get_paths` which returns a `ModelPaths` struct containing `model_path` and `model_dir`, creating ambiguity about which method to use for directory vs file paths. · ×1

Inconsistent naming and return types for path resolution. `StoreConfig` uses `model_dir` (singular, no file) and returns `PathBuf` directly. `Store` uses `model_file_path` (plural context, includes file) and returns `Result`. The `Store` also has `get_paths` which returns a `ModelPaths` struct containing `model_path` and `model_dir`, creating ambiguity about which method to use for directory vs file paths. — Unify path resolution methods. Either expose `model_dir` and `model_file_path` on `Store` with consistent return types (e.g., always `Result<PathBuf>` or always `PathBuf` if errors are impossible), or ensure `StoreConfig` methods are clearly distinct from `Store` methods. Consider renaming `Store.model_file_path` to `Store.file_path` for clarity. (signatures: StoreConfig.model_dir(name: str): PathBuf | Store.model_file_path(name: str, file: str): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Three methods with overlapping intents for retrieving manifest data. `get_manifest` vs `resolve_manifest` vs `resolve_detail_manifest` are confusingly similar. It is unclear if `resolve_manifest` returns a different type or performs additional logic (like resolving symlinks or quant-specific variants) compared to `get_manifest`. The parameter names `name` vs `name_with_quant` also suggest different input requirements without clear documentation in the signature. · ×1

Three methods with overlapping intents for retrieving manifest data. `get_manifest` vs `resolve_manifest` vs `resolve_detail_manifest` are confusingly similar. It is unclear if `resolve_manifest` returns a different type or performs additional logic (like resolving symlinks or quant-specific variants) compared to `get_manifest`. The parameter names `name` vs `name_with_quant` also suggest different input requirements without clear documentation in the signature. — Consolidate into a single `get_manifest` or `resolve_manifest` method. If `resolve_manifest` handles quant-specific resolution, rename `get_manifest` to `get_raw_manifest` or similar to distinguish intent. Remove `resolve_detail_manifest` if it is redundant with `resolve_manifest`. (signatures: Store.get_manifest(name: str): Result | Store.resolve_manifest(name_with_quant: str): Result | Store.resolve_detail_manifest(name_with_quant: str): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Redundant locking methods. `with_model_lock` and `with_model_lock_async` perform the same logical operation (acquiring a lock for a model) but differ only in async/sync nature. While this is common in Rust, having both in the public API without a clear naming convention (e.g., `with_model_lock` and `with_model_lock_async` is okay, but often `with_model_lock` is sufficient if the closure can be async) can be confusing. More importantly, `with_model_lock` takes `impl FnOnce`, while `with_model_lock_async` takes `F` (likely `Future`), which is standard, but the existence of both suggests a potential API surface bloat if one could be derived from the other via standard async traits. · ×1

Redundant locking methods. `with_model_lock` and `with_model_lock_async` perform the same logical operation (acquiring a lock for a model) but differ only in async/sync nature. While this is common in Rust, having both in the public API without a clear naming convention (e.g., `with_model_lock` and `with_model_lock_async` is okay, but often `with_model_lock` is sufficient if the closure can be async) can be confusing. More importantly, `with_model_lock` takes `impl FnOnce`, while `with_model_lock_async` takes `F` (likely `Future`), which is standard, but the existence of both suggests a potential API surface bloat if one could be derived from the other via standard async traits. — Keep both if necessary for ergonomic sync/async usage, but ensure the naming is consistent with other async/sync pairs in the crate. Consider if `with_model_lock` can accept an async closure directly to reduce API surface. (signatures: Store.with_model_lock(name: str, f: impl FnOnce() -> Result<T>): Result | Store.with_model_lock_async(name: str, f: F): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent builder pattern for source creation. `HfSource` has `with_endpoint_and_transport` which takes a `transport` explicitly, while `ModelScopeSource` has `with_endpoint` which does not take a `transport` (implying it creates its own or uses a default). This inconsistency makes it hard to predict how to configure sources with custom transports. · ×1

Inconsistent builder pattern for source creation. `HfSource` has `with_endpoint_and_transport` which takes a `transport` explicitly, while `ModelScopeSource` has `with_endpoint` which does not take a `transport` (implying it creates its own or uses a default). This inconsistency makes it hard to predict how to configure sources with custom transports. — Standardize the source creation API. Either all sources should have a `with_transport` method, or all should create their own transport by default. If `HfSource` needs explicit transport, `ModelScopeSource` should also have a `with_transport` variant for consistency. (signatures: HfSource.with_endpoint_and_transport(repo: String, endpoint: str, token: String, transport: Arc, hint: ManifestHint): Result | ModelScopeSource.with_endpoint(repo: String, endpoint: str, token: String, hint: ManifestHint): Result)

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

REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×1

MethodTooLong: ModelScopeSource.plan sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/modelscope.rs:176 — MethodTooLong — plan runs 104 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 4 over it, 1.04× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unsound) · ×1

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:269 — bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:269-295 | bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:298-322 | bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:582-604 | bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:607-631 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (36 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (36 lines × 2) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/hf.rs:192 — sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/hf.rs:192-227 | sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/modelscope.rs:286-321 — before extracting anything, compare `sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/hf.rs` and `sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/modelscope.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 53 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/localfs.rs:276 — sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/localfs.rs:276-299 | sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/localfs.rs:348-371 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/ai_hub/mod.rs:414 — sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/ai_hub/mod.rs:414-424 | sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/localfs.rs:362-372 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/ai_hub/mod.rs:414 — sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/ai_hub/mod.rs:414-423 | sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/localfs.rs:290-299 | sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/source/localfs.rs:362-371 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6–8 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6–8 lines × 2) sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/mod.rs:356 — sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/mod.rs:356-361 | sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/mod.rs:413-420 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 2) bindings/android/app/src/main/java/com/geniex/sdk/LlmWrapper.kt:82 — bindings/android/app/src/main/java/com/geniex/sdk/LlmWrapper.kt:82-95 | bindings/android/app/src/main/java/com/geniex/sdk/VlmWrapper.kt:112-127 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `bindings/android/app/src/main/java/com/geniex/sdk/LlmWrapper.kt:82` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (31–34 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (31–34 lines × 2) bindings/python/geniex/auto.py:400 — bindings/python/geniex/auto.py:400-433 | bindings/python/geniex/auto.py:493-523 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–13 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–13 lines × 4) bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:283 — bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:283-295 | bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:311-319 | bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:596-604 | bindings/python/geniex/modeling.py:620-628 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go:351 — cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go:351-371 | cli/cmd/geniex/infer.go:534-554 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) REDACTED:202 — REDACTED:202-217 | REDACTED:473-489 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:202` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:122 — cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:122-134 | cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:136-148 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:246 — cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:246-255 | cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:266-276 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cli/server/handler/chat_messages.go:246` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) cli/server/handler/chat.go:297 — cli/server/handler/chat.go:297-305 | cli/server/handler/completion.go:163-170 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) cli/server/handler/chat.go:110 — cli/server/handler/chat.go:110-115 | cli/server/handler/completion.go:137-141 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cli/server/handler/chat.go:110` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) REDACTED:46 — REDACTED:46-55 | cli/server/handler/completion.go:332-341 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

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

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) REDACTED:277 — REDACTED:277-288 | REDACTED:272-283 — 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.

Minor — 143 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×129

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 104 more in this group — see findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×4

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×3

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 4 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/mod.rs, sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/executor/chunk.rs, sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/resume.rs, sdk/model-manager/crates/core/src/manifest.rs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #2 — If anonymized user #2 becomes unavailable, 3 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: bindings/android/app/src/main/java/com/geniex/sdk/VlmWrapper.kt, cli/internal/readline/buffer.go, cli/internal/render/theme.go. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #3 — If anonymized user #3 becomes unavailable, 3 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: cli/server/handler/logits.go, cli/server/utils/toolcall_gemma4.go, cli/internal/thinkfsm/thinkfsm.go. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

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

D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1

REDACTED

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

Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 1 of 94 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 94 of the 169 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: cli/internal/readline/action.go. Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.

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

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 6/7 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `.`.

P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1

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

Minor — 16 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×16

Outdated: github.com/bytedance/sonic — `github.com/bytedance/sonic` is required at v1.15.1 in REDACTED, but v1.15.4 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/bytedance/sonic@v1.15.4 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/charmbracelet/huh — `github.com/charmbracelet/huh` is required at v0.8.0 in REDACTED, but v1.0.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. This crosses a major version — v0 releases carry no compatibility promise, so read the changelog before taking it. Run `go get github.com/charmbracelet/huh@v1.0.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/dustin/go-humanize — `github.com/dustin/go-humanize` is required at v1.0.1 in REDACTED, but v1.1.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/dustin/go-humanize@v1.1.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/gin-gonic/gin — `github.com/gin-gonic/gin` is required at v1.11.0 in REDACTED, but v1.12.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/gin-gonic/gin@v1.12.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/gookit/color — `github.com/gookit/color` is required at v1.6.0 in REDACTED, but v1.6.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/gookit/color@v1.6.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/jedib0t/go-pretty/v6 — `github.com/jedib0t/go-pretty/v6` is required at v6.7.2 in REDACTED, but v6.8.3 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/jedib0t/go-pretty/v6@v6.8.3 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/lmittmann/tint — `github.com/lmittmann/tint` is required at v1.1.2 in REDACTED, but v1.2.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/lmittmann/tint@v1.2.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/mattn/go-runewidth — `github.com/mattn/go-runewidth` is required at v0.0.16 in REDACTED, but v0.0.30 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/mattn/go-runewidth@v0.0.30 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/openai/openai-go/v3 — `github.com/openai/openai-go/v3` is required at v3.17.0 in REDACTED, but v3.66.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/openai/openai-go/v3@v3.66.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/spf13/cobra — `github.com/spf13/cobra` is required at v1.10.1 in REDACTED, but v1.10.2 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/spf13/cobra@v1.10.2 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/valyala/fasthttp — `github.com/valyala/fasthttp` is required at v1.68.0 in REDACTED, but v1.74.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/valyala/fasthttp@v1.74.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/image — `golang.org/x/image` is required at v0.38.0 in REDACTED, but v0.46.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/image@v0.46.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/mod — `golang.org/x/mod` is required at v0.33.0 in REDACTED, but v0.41.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/mod@v0.41.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/sync — `golang.org/x/sync` is required at v0.20.0 in REDACTED, but v0.23.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/sync@v0.23.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/sys — `golang.org/x/sys` is required at v0.46.0 in REDACTED, but v0.48.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/sys@v0.48.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/term — `golang.org/x/term` is required at v0.44.0 in REDACTED, but v0.46.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/term@v0.46.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-aca8a8d537e5412d9b3bb071b486aa73/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	51	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-aca8a8d537e5412d9b3bb071b486aa73/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	4	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	267	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	13	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	6	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 2 file(s) — `cli/server/docs/ui/swagger-ui-es-bundle-core.js`, `cli/server/docs/ui/swagger-ui.js` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a0ec72-f3ac-77eb-8df8-bf407e334d2d · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Qualcomm/GenieX

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 88% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 97% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 76% · Strong ·

At a glance — Readiness · 60% · Adequate · gated by P7 ·

At a glance — Security · 61% · Adequate · gated by D28, D29 ·

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts