{"$schema":"https://json.schemastore.org/sarif-2.1.0.json","version":"2.1.0","runs":[{"tool":{"driver":{"name":"codehealth","informationUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev","rules":[{"id":"D1","name":"Cyclomatic Complexity","shortDescription":{"text":"Cyclomatic Complexity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D1"},{"id":"D2","name":"Cognitive Complexity","shortDescription":{"text":"Cognitive Complexity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D2"},{"id":"D3","name":"God Classes","shortDescription":{"text":"God Classes"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D3"},{"id":"D4","name":"Code Duplication","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Duplication"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D4"},{"id":"D5","name":"Coupling","shortDescription":{"text":"Coupling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D5"},{"id":"D6","name":"Cohesion (LCOM4)","shortDescription":{"text":"Cohesion (LCOM4)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D6"},{"id":"D8","name":"Code Coverage","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Coverage"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D8"},{"id":"D11","name":"Test Reliability","shortDescription":{"text":"Test Reliability"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D11"},{"id":"D12","name":"Dependency Hygiene","shortDescription":{"text":"Dependency Hygiene"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D12"},{"id":"D13","name":"Secret Scanning","shortDescription":{"text":"Secret Scanning"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D13","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"A07:2025","toolComponent":{"name":"OWASP Top 10","guid":"7d1f0c2e-4b6a-4e39-9a51-0b2e8c3d5f61"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-798","CWE-259"],"owasp":"A07:2025"}},{"id":"D14","name":"License Compliance","shortDescription":{"text":"License Compliance"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D14"},{"id":"D15","name":"Churn \u00D7 Complexity Hotspots","shortDescription":{"text":"Churn \u00D7 Complexity Hotspots"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D15"},{"id":"D19","name":"Documentation Quality","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation Quality"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D19"},{"id":"D21","name":"Naming Consistency","shortDescription":{"text":"Naming Consistency"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D21"},{"id":"D26","name":"Project Cohesion","shortDescription":{"text":"Project Cohesion"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D26"},{"id":"D27","name":"Navigability","shortDescription":{"text":"Navigability"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D27"},{"id":"D28","name":"Secrets (history)","shortDescription":{"text":"Secrets (history)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D28","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"A07:2025","toolComponent":{"name":"OWASP Top 10","guid":"7d1f0c2e-4b6a-4e39-9a51-0b2e8c3d5f61"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-798","CWE-259"],"owasp":"A07:2025"}},{"id":"D29","name":"Static Analysis (SAST)","shortDescription":{"text":"Static Analysis (SAST)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D29","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-79","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-89","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-78","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-94","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-77","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"A05:2025","toolComponent":{"name":"OWASP Top 10","guid":"7d1f0c2e-4b6a-4e39-9a51-0b2e8c3d5f61"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-79","CWE-89","CWE-78","CWE-94","CWE-77"],"owasp":"A05:2025"}},{"id":"D30","name":"Dependency Vulnerabilities","shortDescription":{"text":"Dependency Vulnerabilities"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D30","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-1395","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-937","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"A03:2025","toolComponent":{"name":"OWASP Top 10","guid":"7d1f0c2e-4b6a-4e39-9a51-0b2e8c3d5f61"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-1395","CWE-937"],"owasp":"A03:2025"}},{"id":"D34","name":"Knowledge Freshness","shortDescription":{"text":"Knowledge Freshness"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D34"},{"id":"D35","name":"Change Coupling","shortDescription":{"text":"Change Coupling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D35"},{"id":"D36","name":"Supply-chain Provenance \u0026 Signing","shortDescription":{"text":"Supply-chain Provenance \u0026 Signing"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D36","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-494","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"A03:2025","toolComponent":{"name":"OWASP Top 10","guid":"7d1f0c2e-4b6a-4e39-9a51-0b2e8c3d5f61"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-1357","CWE-494"],"owasp":"A03:2025"}},{"id":"D39","name":"IL Efficiency","shortDescription":{"text":"IL Efficiency"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D39"},{"id":"D43","name":"Malicious Dependencies","shortDescription":{"text":"Malicious Dependencies"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D43","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-506","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"A08:2025","toolComponent":{"name":"OWASP Top 10","guid":"7d1f0c2e-4b6a-4e39-9a51-0b2e8c3d5f61"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-506"],"owasp":"A08:2025"}},{"id":"D44","name":"Platform End-of-Life","shortDescription":{"text":"Platform End-of-Life"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D44"},{"id":"AX10","name":"Code composition","shortDescription":{"text":"Code composition"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX10"},{"id":"AX3","name":"Project dependency cycles","shortDescription":{"text":"Project dependency cycles"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX3"},{"id":"AX4","name":"Dependency direction","shortDescription":{"text":"Dependency direction"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX4"},{"id":"AX8","name":"Test isolation","shortDescription":{"text":"Test isolation"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX8"},{"id":"AXB1","name":"Runtime evidence locked \u2014 no reproducible boot","shortDescription":{"text":"Runtime evidence locked \u2014 no reproducible boot"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AXB1"},{"id":"ED5","name":"Idempotency","shortDescription":{"text":"Idempotency"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/ED5"},{"id":"GD1","name":"Unfinished \u0026 placeholder code","shortDescription":{"text":"Unfinished \u0026 placeholder code"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/GD1"},{"id":"M1","name":"Documentation (README)","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation (README)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M1"},{"id":"M2","name":"Architecture documentation","shortDescription":{"text":"Architecture documentation"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M2"},{"id":"M3","name":"Folder \u0026 project structure","shortDescription":{"text":"Folder \u0026 project structure"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M3"},{"id":"M4","name":"Documentation accuracy","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation accuracy"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M4"},{"id":"P1","name":"CI/CD gates","shortDescription":{"text":"CI/CD gates"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P1"},{"id":"P12","name":"CI test-gate honesty","shortDescription":{"text":"CI test-gate honesty"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P12"},{"id":"P3","name":"Security \u0026 performance tooling","shortDescription":{"text":"Security \u0026 performance tooling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P3"},{"id":"P4","name":"Deployment \u0026 Rollback","shortDescription":{"text":"Deployment \u0026 Rollback"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P4"},{"id":"P6","name":"Release Hygiene","shortDescription":{"text":"Release Hygiene"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P6"},{"id":"PF3","name":"Async \u0026 latency hygiene","shortDescription":{"text":"Async \u0026 latency hygiene"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/PF3"},{"id":"SC1","name":"Supply-chain hygiene","shortDescription":{"text":"Supply-chain hygiene"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/SC1"},{"id":"X10","name":"Duplicated predicate","shortDescription":{"text":"Duplicated predicate"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X10"},{"id":"X20","name":"Mistyped argument guard","shortDescription":{"text":"Mistyped argument guard"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X20"},{"id":"X23","name":"Unguarded diagnostic materialisation","shortDescription":{"text":"Unguarded diagnostic materialisation"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X23"},{"id":"X27","name":"Collection changed while being enumerated","shortDescription":{"text":"Collection changed while being enumerated"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X27"},{"id":"X28","name":"Index access outside its own emptiness guard","shortDescription":{"text":"Index access outside its own emptiness guard"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X28"},{"id":"X9","name":"Subsumed condition operand","shortDescription":{"text":"Subsumed condition operand"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X9"}]}},"results":[{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"PaketDependencyManager.ResolveDependencies (cyclomatic 27): PaketDependencyManager.ResolveDependencies has cyclomatic complexity 27 (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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"src/Queil.FSharp.DependencyManager.Paket/PaketDependencyManager.fs"},"region":{"startLine":123}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b84e4ab4867d5b15f916b2c368a0c98ade318d34f33a3bb95d118a0865d61746"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"PaketDependencyManager.ResolveDependencies (cognitive 44): PaketDependencyManager.ResolveDependencies has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (22 pts), loops 3 (8 pts), match/switch 6 (7 pts), error handling 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth \u2014 checks laid out side by side rather than stacked \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"src/Queil.FSharp.DependencyManager.Paket/PaketDependencyManager.fs"},"region":{"startLine":123}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"06d9169771e8b1f92e327a0e40d1e8b094c9b48b1d5e5b78845aae4b4fdd31fd"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Internals.compileScript (cognitive 24): Internals.compileScript has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), match/switch 4 (10 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"src/Queil.FSharp.FscHost/FscHost.fs"},"region":{"startLine":184}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"79f005289ff208d85e75fd0164e1b23e1cfca0d46528f0cadb6420a3fbb1f1fd"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Rids.rewriteRuntimeRefs (cognitive 17): Rids.rewriteRuntimeRefs has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (11 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"src/Queil.FSharp.DependencyManager.Paket/Rids.fs"},"region":{"startLine":62}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"96c063122933382379daa2c85e69e8e2266e2e7042a770f6c7b2c0e36dbc3700"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"CompilerHost.getAssembly (cognitive 17): CompilerHost.getAssembly has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (9 pts), if/else 4 (5 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"src/Queil.FSharp.FscHost/FscHost.fs"},"region":{"startLine":329}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"afcf6bc490c8ccbdb2fa2cdfee0c9c2e02f1f60d072e4a0ecbb5b0cf1fdff788"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6\u20137 lines \u00D7 2): src/Queil.FSharp.FscHost/FscHost.fs:460-466 | src/Queil.FSharp.FscHost/FscHost.fs:477-482 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 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 \u0060src/Queil.FSharp.FscHost/FscHost.fs:460\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names \u2014 the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"src/Queil.FSharp.FscHost/FscHost.fs"},"region":{"startLine":460}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"87c3d603401c8018593f2ef1c895d45ad1da31e67bdfbe54e4e54b99b8deb4e8"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: Plugin\u00601 (LCOM4 6): Plugin\u00601\u0027s methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"src/Queil.FSharp.FscHost/Plugin.fs"},"region":{"startLine":29}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"53d31c87b06533ec6dd9881e8e61927612eade4759fad0e7214a63cb11f21a4e"}},{"ruleId":"D8","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Coverage not measured \u2014 no coverage collector is wired up: Coverage NOT MEASURED: \u0060--collect:\u0022XPlat Code Coverage\u0022\u0060 names a data collector that ships in the \u0060coverlet.collector\u0060 package, and this repository wires up none \u2014 no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, \u0060--collect\u0060 produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a \u0060coverlet.collector\u0060 PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"62e63e619c28f057e129f2997c965d32a457366a9ce18ca019ffb6bdfba85c99"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Hotspot: src/Queil.FSharp.DependencyManager.Paket/PaketDependencyManager.fs: src/Queil.FSharp.DependencyManager.Paket/PaketDependencyManager.fs changed 3 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 27 in PaketDependencyManager.ResolveDependencies at line 123. 3 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 \u2014 a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-03-20..2026-06-18, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-03-20 08:37:49 \u002B02:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-06-18 08:37:49 \u002B02:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- src/Queil.FSharp.DependencyManager.Paket/PaketDependencyManager.fs\u0060: 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 \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"src/Queil.FSharp.DependencyManager.Paket/PaketDependencyManager.fs"},"region":{"startLine":123}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f7e8f81f2d2f9190430a04d3d6c3ec084e9fbe034f982f8119807676d4167e36"}},{"ruleId":"D30","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"03b31df8570933308505a1624e4fd5ee0390537c65b94f5898a4ad85f2c0b177"},"properties":{"dependency":{"package":"System.Formats.Asn1","version":"5.0.0","advisory":"[GHSA redacted]","reachability":{"kind":"production","file":"examples/CompileAndExtract/CompileAndExtract.fsproj"}}}},{"ruleId":"D30","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a80c51272d9b6d0ddf0bfe8367adccf31da8f01e749ce0478379de8a3263de09"},"properties":{"dependency":{"package":"System.Net.Http","version":"4.1.0","advisory":"[GHSA redacted]","reachability":{"kind":"production","file":"src/Queil.FSharp.DependencyManager.Paket/Queil.FSharp.DependencyManager.Paket.fsproj"}}}},{"ruleId":"D30","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c15da98dccd3b6fd378cfdff14d19a86311446e2743e97e860c5e1e32d364573"},"properties":{"dependency":{"package":"System.Security.Cryptography.X509Certificates","version":"4.1.0","advisory":"[GHSA redacted]","reachability":{"kind":"production","file":"src/Queil.FSharp.DependencyManager.Paket/Queil.FSharp.DependencyManager.Paket.fsproj"}}}},{"ruleId":"D36","level":"note","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1b213f6eedd4b140d0bc37bdf1496f72811a643f34064f12518b32e9e83bcfc7"},"taxa":[{"id":"CICD-SEC-9","toolComponent":{"name":"OWASP Top 10 CI/CD Security Risks","guid":"3c9b2a6e-5d14-4f7b-8e02-6a1d9c4b7f35"}}]},{"ruleId":"D36","level":"note","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0e17f71490e4d120a48b2b2881ab866c93b272bef2febb673a3e8e42b2c288ab"},"taxa":[{"id":"CICD-SEC-9","toolComponent":{"name":"OWASP Top 10 CI/CD Security Risks","guid":"3c9b2a6e-5d14-4f7b-8e02-6a1d9c4b7f35"}}]},{"ruleId":"D36","level":"note","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"eb00976a698a5d68999b7ee6d27206fd374e916853e7ff1ead5eed42386f043f"},"taxa":[{"id":"CICD-SEC-9","toolComponent":{"name":"OWASP Top 10 CI/CD Security Risks","guid":"3c9b2a6e-5d14-4f7b-8e02-6a1d9c4b7f35"}}]},{"ruleId":"D36","level":"note","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ace515990e7ee0f17b5c17e44dd168a5bdecf90804a3a3dd845cf05540978013"},"taxa":[{"id":"CICD-SEC-3","toolComponent":{"name":"OWASP Top 10 CI/CD Security Risks","guid":"3c9b2a6e-5d14-4f7b-8e02-6a1d9c4b7f35"}}]},{"ruleId":"D39","level":"note","message":{"text":"IL efficiency: 1 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget: 1 of 261 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (\u003E 250 instructions); worst: Queil.FSharp.FscHost.Reflection.build@61 @ src/Queil.FSharp.FscHost/Reflection.fs:62, 341 IL instructions; that pulled this dimension to 9.9/10. These bodies are far past the JIT\u0027s inline budget, so splitting them does not make them inlinable \u2014 what moves the number is emitting less: collapsing LINQ chains and closures on hot paths, and interpolation built eagerly where it is only sometimes used."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"src/Queil.FSharp.FscHost/Reflection.fs"},"region":{"startLine":62}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f9da3d68ac364a4f45fbd28cfb5013e5411aab9fdebdbbe642e30d9919a70e6e"}},{"ruleId":"M2","level":"note","message":{"text":"No ADRs: No Architecture Decision Records found \u2014 no conventional ADR directory, no numbered \u0060NNNN-title\u0060 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."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"670b3d6e36a756d63097d0dfbf90afd5fc761308800b9354894a07c3f4e4aa14"}},{"ruleId":"M2","level":"note","message":{"text":"No architecture diagram/doc: No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named \u0060architecture\u0060 or \u0060design\u0060 in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape \u2014 no \u0060## Architecture\u0060 heading, no \u0022architecture overview\u0022/\u0022high-level design\u0022 phrasing, no \u0022the architecture is \u2026\u0022 introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document \u2014 not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0c190e7c159d1850ee706c3ac4486e151e8a4fe169de4bf61436b9f399654f06"}},{"ruleId":"M4","level":"note","message":{"text":"README/code drift: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists \u2014 searched for: \u0060dockerfile\u0060, \u0060docker-compose\u0060, \u0060compose.yaml\u0060, \u0060compose.yml\u0060. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README\u0027s own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read \u2014 a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"343bbbd51ceb8de7a9ff88d79f7c797abf9b5921f8727b67b4d0f4f8a22c5e49"}},{"ruleId":"P12","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Coverage collected but not gated: CI collects a coverage report but no step enforces a minimum \u2014 coverage could halve and CI stays green. Add a step that fails the build when coverage drops below a floor (your coverage tool\u0027s minimum-threshold flag, or a coverage-gate action) so the number guards something. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: this repository\u0027s CI files AND its coverage configuration \u2014 the well-known coverage and test-runner config files, read at the repository root and inside workspace package directories two levels down, so a floor declared beside the tests rather than in the pipeline is credited \u2014 matched against the threshold settings this check knows by name. A floor set in your coverage service\u0027s web UI rather than in a committed file, or under a setting whose name is not one of those, is not seen here."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7f63c06044cf998d9a0698692df30d8873e29bc9b0c98ee829255017c1193d33"}},{"ruleId":"P3","level":"note","message":{"text":"No SAST: No static application security testing detected. For this repository\u0027s stack, add \u0060semgrep --config=auto\u0060 plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 1244 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge\u0027s web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen \u2014 if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6e54424179c892f03ef2fd003130ac4bd43f39bbf3b1ca0a0143e25acb80ec87"}},{"ruleId":"P4","level":"note","message":{"text":"No release approval gate: The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY\u0027S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under \u0060.github/workflows/\u0060, \u0060.forgejo/workflows/\u0060, \u0060.gitea/workflows/\u0060, \u0060.azuredevops/\u0060 and \u0060.azure-pipelines/\u0060, plus \u0060.gitlab-ci*\u0060 and \u0060azure-pipelines*\u0060 \u2014 with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab\u0027s \u0060when: manual\u0060, CircleCI\u0027s \u0060type: approval\u0060, an Azure \u0060ManualValidation@\u0060 task or an \u0060approvals:\u0060 block, a Jenkins \u0060input\u0060 step, a \u0060uses:\u0060 step naming an approval action, an \u0060environment:\u0060 paired with \u0060reviewers\u0060 / \u0060required_reviewers\u0060 / \u0060protection\u0060 / \u0060wait-timer\u0060 / \u0060deployment_branch_policy\u0060, a draft-release step, a \u0060workflow_dispatch\u0060 promotion, or a release-event gate. \u2605 What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy \u2014 all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6c11e2dbd483b4b423b95ac61bfcc7af1d55351b28a20d2b1105b31cfe38cc60"}},{"ruleId":"P6","level":"note","message":{"text":"No changelog: No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file \u2014 what shipped when isn\u0027t easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)"},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"dda5aa5aed8cbb292c3ef2b733bc138f614293ae6426c85e98bf31ef330d9415"}}],"taxonomies":[{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d","organization":"MITRE","informationUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/","isComprehensive":false,"shortDescription":{"text":"The MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)."},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","guid":"e4d2e772-757e-0a5c-bd7d-77052949d866","name":"Reliance on Insufficiently Trustworthy Component","shortDescription":{"text":"Reliance on Insufficiently Trustworthy Component"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1357.html"},{"id":"CWE-1395","guid":"800e09e7-c11a-8654-9fa6-86f398995fed","name":"Dependency on Vulnerable Third-Party Component","shortDescription":{"text":"Dependency on Vulnerable Third-Party Component"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1395.html"},{"id":"CWE-259","guid":"ae9ad959-fbb6-9d5e-892d-3dca66da0b69","name":"Use of Hard-coded Password","shortDescription":{"text":"Use of Hard-coded Password"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/259.html"},{"id":"CWE-494","guid":"b8a65e0d-e459-4a55-a931-fc1136482375","name":"Download of Code Without Integrity Check","shortDescription":{"text":"Download of Code Without Integrity Check"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/494.html"},{"id":"CWE-506","guid":"401d6455-56e3-0552-9a39-f77461673e3f","name":"Embedded Malicious Code","shortDescription":{"text":"Embedded Malicious Code"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/506.html"},{"id":"CWE-77","guid":"332c8ade-6612-9f56-a06b-d8d90b1a8750","name":"Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (\u0027Command Injection\u0027)","shortDescription":{"text":"Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (\u0027Command Injection\u0027)"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html"},{"id":"CWE-78","guid":"2e31ceaf-c7ae-2e5e-9661-cfb1362789cf","name":"Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027)","shortDescription":{"text":"Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027)"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/78.html"},{"id":"CWE-79","guid":"fd45580b-e8c4-fc5e-8c2f-aa8fab0b4dbf","name":"Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027)","shortDescription":{"text":"Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027)"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html"},{"id":"CWE-798","guid":"5e8f057d-fee3-995a-a0cb-9fc5b0d174d1","name":"Use of Hard-coded Credentials","shortDescription":{"text":"Use of Hard-coded Credentials"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/798.html"},{"id":"CWE-89","guid":"6d08fdad-37eb-c150-bbf0-d7d946863407","name":"Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command (\u0027SQL Injection\u0027)","shortDescription":{"text":"Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command (\u0027SQL Injection\u0027)"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/89.html"},{"id":"CWE-937","guid":"16f316ae-415c-b354-a59b-1f7905f756e9","name":"Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities","shortDescription":{"text":"Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/937.html"},{"id":"CWE-94","guid":"75e7f50c-6c2f-dd52-bf40-bf6c52b861fd","name":"Improper Control of Generation of Code (\u0027Code Injection\u0027)","shortDescription":{"text":"Improper Control of Generation of Code (\u0027Code Injection\u0027)"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/94.html"}]},{"name":"OWASP Top 10","guid":"7d1f0c2e-4b6a-4e39-9a51-0b2e8c3d5f61","version":"2025","organization":"OWASP Foundation","informationUri":"https://top10.owasp.org/2025/","isComprehensive":false,"shortDescription":{"text":"The OWASP Top 10:2025 web application security risks."},"taxa":[{"id":"A03:2025","guid":"168e227c-7735-2e57-bc6e-997affe644c5","name":"Software Supply Chain Failures","shortDescription":{"text":"Software Supply Chain Failures"},"helpUri":"https://top10.owasp.org/2025/A03_2025-Software_Supply_Chain_Failures/"},{"id":"A05:2025","guid":"87e86033-3231-8458-8e4a-5cb82743553a","name":"Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"Injection"},"helpUri":"https://top10.owasp.org/2025/A05_2025-Injection/"},{"id":"A07:2025","guid":"334ddd78-539d-d35c-83dd-253647eb7eaf","name":"Authentication Failures","shortDescription":{"text":"Authentication Failures"},"helpUri":"https://top10.owasp.org/2025/A07_2025-Authentication_Failures/"},{"id":"A08:2025","guid":"84b0c297-710e-9a5f-9335-936ecb260c36","name":"Software or Data Integrity Failures","shortDescription":{"text":"Software or Data Integrity Failures"},"helpUri":"https://top10.owasp.org/2025/A08_2025-Software_or_Data_Integrity_Failures/"}]},{"name":"OWASP Top 10 CI/CD Security Risks","guid":"3c9b2a6e-5d14-4f7b-8e02-6a1d9c4b7f35","organization":"OWASP Foundation","informationUri":"https://owasp.org/www-project-top-10-ci-cd-security-risks/","isComprehensive":false,"shortDescription":{"text":"The OWASP Top 10 CI/CD Security Risks."},"taxa":[{"id":"CICD-SEC-3","guid":"458c83a6-ebf7-cf55-8cc3-b4d949bbf271","name":"Dependency Chain Abuse","shortDescription":{"text":"Dependency Chain Abuse"},"helpUri":"https://owasp.github.io/www-project-top-10-ci-cd-security-risks/CICD-SEC-03-Dependency-Chain-Abuse"},{"id":"CICD-SEC-9","guid":"b3d36727-0395-5b51-94c4-5e173d62eab3","name":"Improper Artifact Integrity Validation","shortDescription":{"text":"Improper Artifact Integrity Validation"},"helpUri":"https://owasp.github.io/www-project-top-10-ci-cd-security-risks/CICD-SEC-09-Improper-Artifact-Integrity-Validation"}]}],"properties":{"codehealthPublication":{"public":true,"notice":"This is the PUBLIC form of this artifact. Findings are listed in full, but the details of SECURITY findings \u2014 which rule fired, in which file, on which line, and how to fix it \u2014 are deliberately withheld, and any secret-scanner results are excluded entirely. Where detail is absent here it was REMOVED FOR PUBLICATION; it is not missing from the analysis. The complete artifact is available from the repository owner.","securityFindingsRedacted":7,"secretScannerRunsExcluded":0}},"redactionTokens":["A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."]}]}