Public report of razzmatazz/csharp-language-server, published 23 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive report Measured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey → Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 23 October 2026, 19:34 UTC · Survey ID cd_b7d0676d5f7745dbb1541ec9747b5a23

razzmatazz/csharp-language-server

Measured 23 October 2026, 19:29 UTC, at code version 19ec0e2

No regression since the last survey Code coverage: not measuredTest reliability: not measuredIL efficiency: not measured

A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.

Code coverage is not measured: The repo's test suite did not build.

Test reliability is not measured: No test run produced results.

IL efficiency is not measured: The target did not build.

CAI score 64out of 100 Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Up 1 since the last survey

The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.

Performance 100 Exemplary Security and Compliance 80 Adequate Code Health 69 Strong Production Readiness 68 Adequate Architecture 62 Adequate Maturity 60 Adequate

A medium codebase: 22,224 lines of product code in 33 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.3 person-years · Weakest lens: Maturity, 60

Findings by how serious they are

12 critical 75 serious 30 minor

32 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
23 October 2026, 19:29 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.

The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸

38of 40 dimensions measured by tools. The other 2 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
91of 117 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 26 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
40dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 22,224 lines of product code in 33 projects.
Chapters

Executive summary

razzmatazz/csharp-language-server scores 64 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while four of its six lenses score higher still: Performance at 100, rated Exemplary, Security and Compliance at 80 and Production Readiness at 68, both rated Adequate, and Code Health at 69, rated Strong. The project hasn't declared a stable release yet, so its lenses are rated against a lower bar than a released product's, while the score itself is worked out as for any repository.

The score is lower than those four because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Maturity, which scores 60 and is rated Adequate. Its Architecture documentation dimension scores 2 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Maturity can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality and to record your significant design decisions, and if Maturity rose to 70, the score would rise from 64 to about 67.

12 findings are critical: eight in Static Analysis (SAST), two in Explicit Debt and two in Security & performance tooling.

Watchdog couldn't measure 30 dimensions in this code, among them Documentation Quality, Comment Value and Data Protection, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 22,224 lines, which would take an estimated 0.3 person-years, around €39,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 69 Strong Architecture 62 Adequate, capped by Code composition Maturity 60 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 68 Adequate, capped by Security & performance tooling Security and Compliance 80 Adequate, capped by Supply-chain Provenance & Signing Performance 100 ★ Exemplary

A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Maturity 60 · counts for 46%Architecture 62 · counts for 25%Production Readiness 68 · counts for 14%Code Health 69 · counts for 8%Security and Compliance 80 · counts for 4%Performance 100 · counts for 2%

If Maturity rose from 60 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 64 to about 67.

Code composition: what the lines of code are
Product code 66%Tests 34%
New since the last survey: 2 findings

These 2 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026.

Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.

Fixed since the last survey: 2 findings

These 2 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

  • Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot: src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/InlayHint.fs src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/InlayHint.fs
  • Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €39,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild€13,000 to €65,000, for 216 to 685 hours of work, about 0.3 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problemStandard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor×0.9 at a score of 64. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
SizeMedium: 22,224 lines of product code

How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.

Top priorities

The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.

1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 4 points · Low effort · ADR Quality
2
Record your significant design decisions.
Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Raises the score by about 3 points · Medium effort · Architecture documentation
3
Resolve the 2 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Directory.Packages.props (2).
Raises the score by about 2 points · Low effort · Explicit Debt

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €39,000 to build again, about 0.3 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Maturity, at 60 (Adequate). Maturity is about how well the project explains and looks after itself, which decides whether a new developer, or a new supplier, can take over. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Maturity also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Maturity grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Maturity actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 4 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 ADR Quality findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

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.

arch CSharpLanguageServer CSharpLanguageServer Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol LanguageServerProtocol CSharpLanguageServer->Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol MetaModelGenerator MetaModelGenerator

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.

157 modules, with 226 dependencies between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 117 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →1 Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol.JsonRpc2 Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol.Logging.Types3 Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol.Types4 MetaModelGenerator.MetaModel5 Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol6 CSharpLanguageServer.Types7 CSharpLanguageServer.Diagnostics8 CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.Client9 CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.WorkspaceFolder10 CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.Workspace11 CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.RequestScheduling12 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.CallHierarchy13 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.CodeAction14 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.CodeLens15 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Color16 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Completion17 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Declaration18 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Definition19 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Diagnostic20 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentFormatting21 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentHighlight22 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentLink23 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentOnTypeFormatting24 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentRangeFormatting25 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentSymbol26 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.ExecuteCommand27 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.FoldingRange28 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Hover29 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Implementation30 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Rename31 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.SemanticTokens32 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.TextDocumentSync33 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Workspace34 CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.DebugInfo35 CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.PushDiagnostics36 CSharpLanguageServer.Tests.RequestSchedulingTests37 CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.ServerStateLoop38 CSharpLanguageServer.Tests.Tooling39 CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.Server40 CSharpLanguageServer.Tests.Fixtures
1 Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol.JsonRpc
2 Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol.Logging.Types
3 Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol.Types
4 MetaModelGenerator.MetaModel
5 Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol4238
6 CSharpLanguageServer.Types2243
7 CSharpLanguageServer.Diagnostics11911
8 CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.Client11521
9 CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.WorkspaceFolder312
10 CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.Workspace5122
11 CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.RequestScheduling1121
12 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.CallHierarchy811
13 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.CodeAction7111
14 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.CodeLens611
15 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Color411
16 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Completion711
17 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Declaration311
18 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Definition511
19 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Diagnostic11111
20 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentFormatting711
21 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentHighlight611
22 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentLink511
23 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentOnTypeFormatting411
24 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentRangeFormatting511
25 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentSymbol711
26 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.ExecuteCommand411
27 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.FoldingRange811
28 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Hover611
29 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Implementation6111
30 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Rename7111
31 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.SemanticTokens11011
32 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.TextDocumentSync11111
33 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Workspace6111
34 CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.DebugInfo1112
35 CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.PushDiagnostics1111
36 CSharpLanguageServer.Tests.RequestSchedulingTests118114
37 CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.ServerStateLoop52312511
38 CSharpLanguageServer.Tests.Tooling811
39 CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.Server411
40 CSharpLanguageServer.Tests.Fixtures28
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
1 Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol.JsonRpc2 Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol.Logging.Types3 Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol.Types4 MetaModelGenerator.MetaModel5 Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol6 CSharpLanguageServer.Types7 CSharpLanguageServer.Diagnostics8 CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.Client9 CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.WorkspaceFolder10 CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.Workspace11 CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.RequestScheduling12 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.CallHierarchy13 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.CodeAction14 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.CodeLens15 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Color16 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Completion17 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Declaration18 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Definition19 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Diagnostic20 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentFormatting21 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentHighlight22 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentLink23 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentOnTypeFormatting24 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentRangeFormatting25 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentSymbol26 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.ExecuteCommand27 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.FoldingRange28 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Hover29 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Implementation30 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Rename31 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.SemanticTokens32 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.TextDocumentSync33 CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Workspace34 CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.DebugInfo35 CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.PushDiagnostics36 CSharpLanguageServer.Tests.RequestSchedulingTests37 CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.ServerStateLoop38 CSharpLanguageServer.Tests.Tooling39 CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.Server40 CSharpLanguageServer.Tests.FixturesIonide.LanguageServerProtocol.JsonRpc1Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol.Logging.Types2Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol.Types3MetaModelGenerator.MetaModel4Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol5CSharpLanguageServer.Types6CSharpLanguageServer.Diagnostics7CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.Client8CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.WorkspaceFolder9CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.Workspace10CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.RequestScheduling11CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.CallHierarchy12CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.CodeAction13CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.CodeLens14CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Color15CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Completion16CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Declaration17CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Definition18CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Diagnostic19CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentFormatting20CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentHighlight21CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentLink22CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentOnTypeFormatting23CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentRangeFormatting24CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.DocumentSymbol25CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.ExecuteCommand26CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.FoldingRange27CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Hover28CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Implementation29CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Rename30CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.SemanticTokens31CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.TextDocumentSync32CSharpLanguageServer.Handlers.Workspace33CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.DebugInfo34CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.PushDiagnostics35CSharpLanguageServer.Tests.RequestSchedulingTests36CSharpLanguageServer.Runtime.ServerStateLoop37CSharpLanguageServer.Tests.Tooling38CSharpLanguageServer.Lsp.Server39CSharpLanguageServer.Tests.Fixtures40423822431191111521312512211218117111611411711311511111117116115114115117114118116116111711111011111116111111211111181145231251181141128+117 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 69% · Strong ·

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 7.3 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 7.2 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 8.8 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.4 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0
The Bad
D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 6.0

At a glance — Architecture · 62% · Adequate · gated by AX10 ·

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 7.9 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 9.8 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0
The Ugly
AX10 · Repo Code composition 0.0

At a glance — Maturity · 60% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.8 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.7 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 8.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 8.8
The Ugly
D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 68% · Adequate · gated by P3 ·

The Good
D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 9.2 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0
The Bad
P2 · Repo Observability 6.0
The Ugly
P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 3.0

At a glance — Security · 80% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 10.0 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 10.0
The Ugly
D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 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 categoryFindingsSeverity
A05:2025 — Injection8High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures7Medium

Roadmap

First, address the lack of architectural decision records by documenting key design choices in a dedicated folder, and clarify test execution steps in the project README. Next, resolve explicit debt warnings in the package configuration files to clean up the build environment. Finally, tighten .NET analyzer settings to treat warnings as errors, ensuring that security and quality regressions immediately fail the build rather than passing silently.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+4.3 ptsLowADR Quality
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.+3.5 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Resolve the 2 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Directory.Packages.props (2).+1.7 ptsLowExplicit Debt
Resolve the 1 Scattered collaborators finding(s) in Navigability.+1.1 ptsLowNavigability
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.+2.0 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)
Resolve the 1 Outdated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with Directory.Packages.props.+0.7 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
The .NET analyzers are running but not blocking — tighten them (set <AnalysisMode>All</AnalysisMode>, or treat analyzer warnings as errors on CI) so a security/quality regression fails the build rather than scrolling past as a warning.+1.2 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling
Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.+1.2 ptsMediumFolder & project structure

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 34 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 3% slop · 6% mixed · 91% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED2.5SlopStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED3.0MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
Directory.Packages.props5.9MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj — known-vulnerability alert suppressed
src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateTypes.fs7.0Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: GenerateTypes.createField (cyclomatic 20)
src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs7.1Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: CallHierarchy.outgoingCalls (cyclomatic 20)
src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs7.1Near-cleanGod Classes: FileTooLong: src/Types.cg.fs
src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs7.2Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: ErasedUnionConverter`1.Read (cyclomatic 33)
src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/InlayHint.fs7.4Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: InlayHint.toInlayHint (cyclomatic 57)
src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/JsonRpc.fs7.4Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: JsonRpc.processEvent (cyclomatic 40)
src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateClientServer.fs7.4Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: GenerateClientServer.generateClientServer (cyclomatic 33)
src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Conversions.fs7.4Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: SymbolKind.fromSymbol (cyclomatic 23)
src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSync.fs7.4Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (7–9 lines × 2)
src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/ServerStateLoop.fs7.8Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: ServerStateLoop.processServerEvent (cyclomatic 72)
src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/PushDiagnostics.fs7.8Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: PushDiagnostics.processPendingPushDiagnostics (cyclomatic 18)
src/CSharpLanguageServer/Lsp/WorkspaceFolder.fs7.8Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: WorkspaceFolder.workspaceFolderDocumentDetails (cyclomatic 16)
src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CodeAction.fs7.8Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: CodeAction.getRoslynCodeActions (cognitive 18)
src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentOnTypeFormatting.fs7.8Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: DocumentOnTypeFormatting.getSyntaxNode (cognitive 16)
src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSymbol.fs7.8Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (10 lines × 2)
src/CSharpLanguageServer/Program.fs8.5Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: Program.entry (cyclomatic 18)
src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Diagnostic.fs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: Diagnostic.getWorkspaceDiagnosticReports (cognitive 26)

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 — 12

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 — 75

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 — 30

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

Could not be resolved — 32

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. 38 of 40 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — 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 — 40 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D12D13D14D15D17D20D21D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D36D44AX10AX3AX4AX8GD1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P6PF3X20X23X27X28

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
  1. 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, 91 of 117 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.)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivySecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a16a3d-954c-7204-bc9a-0070c5becd67.

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.

  • D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test reliability NOT MEASURED: the test run produced no results for any test tier, so no test ever ran and flakiness could not be exercised. The cause could not be attributed, so it is excluded from the score rather than read as an absence of tests.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — 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. A hotspot's complexity is meant to be the worst body its churn actually touched. For src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/ServerStateLoop.fs, src/CSharpLanguageServer/Lsp/WorkspaceFolder.fs, src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs, src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs that could not be established — the complexity reader for the file reports no body extents, or the history carries no per-line attribution — so the row quotes the file's worst body, which the counted changes may never have touched. The churn count is unaffected.
  • D16 Bus Factor — 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. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (24 contributor(s) across 1355 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 90% of the history; the other 23 hold 0.4% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
  • D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The C# workspace loaded this repository's projects but reported a load failure, and the dead-code reference search is unreliable over a graph that did not load cleanly, so it was skipped. The other debt markers on this row were read; dead symbols were not, and their absence from the score is not a finding that the code has none. First load diagnostic: Failure: Cannot open project 'src/CSharpLanguageServer/CSharpLanguageServer.fsproj' because the file extension '.fsproj' is not associated with a language.
  • D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 2 deducted marker(s) and the 2.0/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .fs (22,224 lines, 100% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
  • D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
  • D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — 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. `dotnet build` exited 1 with a compiler/MSBuild diagnostic, so there were no assemblies to read IL from. The build itself is D18's row, with the ask; nothing further is charged here.
  • 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.
  • P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
  • X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

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.
  • 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 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • 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 (2): D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity7.3 / 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 7.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

13 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ServerStateLoop.processServerEvent at 72. A further 3 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 Completion.roslynTagToLspCompletion at 21 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 3 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: src/CSharpLanguageServer/DocumentationUtil.fs (DocumentationUtil.formatTextElement at 21), src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Completion.fs (Completion.roslynTagToLspCompletion at 21), src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSymbol.fs (DocumentSymbol.getSymbolNameAndKind at 20). 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.

ServerStateLoop.processServerEvent (cyclomatic 72)src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/ServerStateLoop.fs:115
InlayHint.toInlayHint (cyclomatic 57)src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/InlayHint.fs:238
JsonRpc.processEvent (cyclomatic 40)src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/JsonRpc.fs:674
ErasedUnionConverter`1.Read (cyclomatic 33)src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs:428
GenerateClientServer.generateClientServer (cyclomatic 33)src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateClientServer.fs:13

+ 8 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Bring the 13 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ServerStateLoop.processServerEvent (cyclomatic 72), InlayHint.toInlayHint (cyclomatic 57), JsonRpc.processEvent (cyclomatic 40). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 13 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 7.3 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
  2. 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity7.2 / 10Strong✓ 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 7.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

17 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ServerStateLoop.processServerEvent at 60.

ServerStateLoop.processServerEvent (cognitive 60)src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/ServerStateLoop.fs:115
ErasedUnionConverter`1.Read (cognitive 56)src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs:428
InlayHint.toInlayHint (cognitive 50)src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/InlayHint.fs:238
CallHierarchy.outgoingCalls (cognitive 50)src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs:134
GenerateClientServer.generateClientServer (cognitive 48)src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateClientServer.fs:13

+ 12 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Bring the 17 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with ServerStateLoop.processServerEvent (cognitive 60), ErasedUnionConverter`1.Read (cognitive 56), InlayHint.toInlayHint (cognitive 50). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 17 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 7.2 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
  2. 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.

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

6 god class(es) detected.

FileTooLong: src/Types.cg.fs · ×4src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs
TooManyMethods: LspServer · ×2src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Server.fs:16

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Types.cg.fs, JsonRpc.fs, GenerateTypes.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Server.fs, Client.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  3. 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.

D4 · Code Duplication9.4 / 10Stronggated by 29 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

28 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 (11 lines × 2) · ×5src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CodeAction.fs:255
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×2src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/InlayHint.fs:703
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×2src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSync.fs:62
Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens)src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs:1
Duplicated block (43 lines × 2)src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:1738

+ 18 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with CodeAction.fs, DocumentOnTypeFormatting.fs, SignatureHelp.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with InlayHint.fs, DocumentSync.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with DocumentSync.fs, FsLibLog.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  4. 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.

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

33 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

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 12 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

16 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

Outdated: coverlet.collectorDirectory.Packages.props:20
Outdated: DotNet.ReproducibleBuilds · ×15

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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 84 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 22 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 83 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.8 / 10Stronggated by 5 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 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Top hotspots: src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/ServerStateLoop.fs (3×72=216); src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs (5×20=100); src/CSharpLanguageServer/Lsp/WorkspaceFolder.fs (5×16=80) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Solution.fs (4 of 5 changes were fixes)

Hotspot: src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/ServerStateLoop.fs · ×4src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/ServerStateLoop.fs:115
Repeated repair: src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Solution.fssrc/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Solution.fs:506

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with ServerStateLoop.fs, CallHierarchy.fs, WorkspaceFolder.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with Solution.fs. — 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 0 LoC in the .NET projects (2.0/KLoC) → score 6.0. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped. Measured on the .NET source only: .fs (100% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).

NoWarnInCsproj — known-vulnerability alert suppressed · ×2Directory.Packages.props:11

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Directory.Packages.props (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. 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.

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

  1. 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.

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 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether each project is a focused, coherent unit rather than an oversized grab-bag.

Method: Project size overshoot penalties (LoC / public-type count / namespace count, 2-of-3 flag) weighted by log magnitude. Exhaustive across projects, deterministic, LLM-independent.

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

0 of 31 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D27 · Navigability7.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

94 % of calls cross a namespace and 2 % go through an interface, but 57 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

Scattered collaborators

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Scattered collaborators finding(s) in Navigability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Adequategated by 8 critical findings○ Nothing flagged

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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

8 finding(s): 0 critical, 8 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 8 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. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

What to do

  1. No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 8 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 (8 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No known-vulnerable dependencies in any ecosystem this repository declares.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 62 of the 75 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

D35 · Change Coupling9.8 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ 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 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: Implementation.fs↔TypeDefinition.fs 60%

Change coupling: Implementation.fs ↔ TypeDefinition.fssrc/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Implementation.fs:1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with Implementation.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

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

What to do

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

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

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 35 platform declaration(s) and 0 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.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

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.

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.

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.

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue in this repository's F#: bindings whose whole body still raises a "not implemented" error (NotImplementedException, failwith "not implemented"), and placeholder text (lorem ipsum, changeme/replace_me…) left in string literals of non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.

M1 · Documentation (README)6.7 / 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

  • Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 31 of 31 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Weak✓ 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 your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
M3 · Folder & project structure8.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

  • Only 14/31 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.

What to do

  • Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
M4 · Documentation accuracy8.8 / 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.

  • src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md links to `LICENSE`, but `src/CSharpLanguageServer/LICENSE` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md:8
  • src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md links to `docs/features.md`, but `src/CSharpLanguageServer/docs/features.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md:26
  • src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md links to `docs/troubleshooting.md`, but `src/CSharpLanguageServer/docs/troubleshooting.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md:29
  • src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md links to `CONTRIBUTING.md`, but `src/CSharpLanguageServer/CONTRIBUTING.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md:32
  • src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md links to `docs/codebase-architecture.md`, but `src/CSharpLanguageServer/docs/codebase-architecture.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md:34

What to do

  • Reconcile the README with reality: src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md links to `LICENSE`, but `src/CSharpLanguageServer/LICENSE` does not exist; src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md links to `docs/features.md`, but `src/CSharpLanguageServer/docs/features.md` does not exist; src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md links to `docs/troubleshooting.md`, but `src/CSharpLanguageServer/docs/troubleshooting.md` does not exist; src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md links to `CONTRIBUTING.md`, but `src/CSharpLanguageServer/CONTRIBUTING.md` does not exist; src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md links to `docs/codebase-architecture.md`, but `src/CSharpLanguageServer/docs/codebase-architecture.md` does not exist.
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.

P2 · Observability6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 2/3 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator`.

What to do

  • Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting with the ASP.NET Core instrumentation) and a health-check endpoint (ASP.NET Core's MapHealthChecks, or a /health route in your Giraffe/Suave app) for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling3.0 / 10Weak✓ 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.

  • <NuGetAudit>false</NuGetAudit> in MSBuild suppresses NuGet's vulnerability audit project-wide. — tests/CSharpLanguageServer.Tests/Fixtures/platformSpecificTfm/Project/Project.csproj:6
  • `NoWarn` silences NU1902, NU1903 — NuGet's vulnerability-audit warnings for moderate and high advisories. Suppressed advisories are still shipped; they are only invisible in the build log. Remove these codes from NoWarn and address or explicitly accept each advisory instead. — Directory.Packages.props:11

What to do

  • The .NET analyzers are running but not blocking — tighten them (set <AnalysisMode>All</AnalysisMode>, or treat analyzer warnings as errors on CI) so a security/quality regression fails the build rather than scrolling past as a warning.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

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, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `NullPointerException` (Java, Kotlin, Scala), `ArgumentError.notNull` (Dart) or `ArgumentNullException` (F#'s `nullArg`) tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.

Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `for … in` loop leaves the mutable .NET collection it is walking alone — F#'s own lists, arrays, maps and sets cannot be changed by a loop body, but a `ResizeArray`, `Dictionary`, `Queue` or other BCL collection walked by `for x in c do` is walked through its enumerator, so a body that adds to or removes from `c` makes the next `MoveNext` throw `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health69%StrongSolid.
Architecture62%Adequate — gated by AX10Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity60%Adequate — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness68%Adequate — gated by P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security80%Adequate — gated by D36Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance100%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Not evidenced — 5 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.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 73 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 applicable: this repository's F# imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No F# function in this code takes an ASP.NET Core or Suave HttpContext (a Giraffe, Saturn, Falco, Oxpecker or Suave handler) and no F# class is an ASP.NET Core controller, so no request handler shares module state between request threads.
  • 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
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • D10 Test Quality — ~11370 lines of test source are present (.fs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results
  • D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
  • D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution, but this repository's production source is mostly .fs, which the C#/VB workspace does not load — the projects that loaded are an immaterial minority, so solution shape was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — single shared-core project — no cross-context coupling to assess
  • D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the target did not build
  • 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.
  • D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.
  • D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.fs) 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 its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 414 value object(s); 6 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — reported, not scored — this repository's C# declares no analysable method bodies (a constants, record or DTO assembly), and this score is a density of unfinished work per method, which has no denominator here. The file-level signals below were still collected and are shown in full
  • 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'.
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
  • P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for a BenchmarkDotNet reference in an .fsproj or .vbproj, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's F# code has 26,357 production line(s), 2 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
  • 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 — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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 — 12 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×2
  • NoWarnInCsproj — known-vulnerability alert suppressed Directory.Packages.props:11 — NU1902 — this is not a style rule being switched off: it is the dependency audit reporting that a package this project references has a KNOWN, already-published security vulnerability, and the entry deletes that report for the whole project — for this package and for every dependency the project takes from here on, including ones added long after whoever wrote the line has moved on. Nothing in the build will raise it again, so the next reader has no way to learn it was ever accepted. Upgrade the package to a version carrying the fix, or replace it, and drop the code from the list. Where the fix genuinely does not exist yet, keep the report and stop it FAILING the build — demote it to a warning without silencing it — and write down which advisory is being accepted and until when, so it is the acceptance that expires rather than the alert.
  • NoWarnInCsproj — known-vulnerability alert suppressed Directory.Packages.props:11 — NU1903 — this is not a style rule being switched off: it is the dependency audit reporting that a package this project references has a KNOWN, already-published security vulnerability, and the entry deletes that report for the whole project — for this package and for every dependency the project takes from here on, including ones added long after whoever wrote the line has moved on. Nothing in the build will raise it again, so the next reader has no way to learn it was ever accepted. Upgrade the package to a version carrying the fix, or replace it, and drop the code from the list. Where the fix genuinely does not exist yet, keep the report and stop it FAILING the build — demote it to a warning without silencing it — and write down which advisory is being accepted and until when, so it is the acceptance that expires rather than the alert.
P3 · Security & performance tooling · NuGet vulnerability audit disabled (csproj) · ×1
  • NuGet vulnerability audit disabled (csproj) tests/CSharpLanguageServer.Tests/Fixtures/platformSpecificTfm/Project/Project.csproj:6 — <NuGetAudit>false</NuGetAudit> in MSBuild suppresses NuGet's vulnerability audit project-wide.
P3 · Security & performance tooling · NuGet vulnerability audit suppressed via NoWarn · ×1
  • NuGet vulnerability audit suppressed via NoWarn Directory.Packages.props:11 — `NoWarn` silences NU1902, NU1903 — NuGet's vulnerability-audit warnings for moderate and high advisories. Suppressed advisories are still shipped; they are only invisible in the build log. Remove these codes from NoWarn and address or explicitly accept each advisory instead.
Serious — 75 finding(s)
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×5
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CodeAction.fs:255 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CodeAction.fs:255-265 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Rename.fs:54-64 — 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 `src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CodeAction.fs:255` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentOnTypeFormatting.fs:77 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentOnTypeFormatting.fs:77-87 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentRangeFormatting.fs:48-58 — 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 `src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentOnTypeFormatting.fs:77` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/SignatureHelp.fs:132 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/SignatureHelp.fs:132-142 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/SignatureHelp.fs:152-162 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateClientServer.fs:111 — src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateClientServer.fs:111-121 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateClientServer.fs:146-157 — 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 `src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateClientServer.fs:111` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateTypes.fs:49 — src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateTypes.fs:49-59 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateTypes.fs:60-72 — 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 `src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateTypes.fs:49` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. 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.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×4
  • Hotspot: src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/ServerStateLoop.fs src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/ServerStateLoop.fs:115 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/ServerStateLoop.fs changed 3 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 72 in ServerStateLoop.processServerEvent at line 115. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 2 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 10:02:10 +03:00' --until='2026-10-23 10:02:10 +03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/ServerStateLoop.fs`: 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: src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs:134 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs changed 5 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 20 in CallHierarchy.outgoingCalls at line 134. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 3 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 10:02:10 +03:00' --until='2026-10-23 10:02:10 +03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs`: 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: src/CSharpLanguageServer/Lsp/WorkspaceFolder.fs src/CSharpLanguageServer/Lsp/WorkspaceFolder.fs:447 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Lsp/WorkspaceFolder.fs changed 5 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 16 in WorkspaceFolder.workspaceFolderDocumentDetails at line 447. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 3 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 10:02:10 +03:00' --until='2026-10-23 10:02:10 +03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CSharpLanguageServer/Lsp/WorkspaceFolder.fs`: 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: src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs:428 — src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs changed 2 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 33 in ErasedUnionConverter`1.Read at line 428. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 10:02:10 +03:00' --until='2026-10-23 10:02:10 +03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs`: 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.
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×4
  • FileTooLong: src/Types.cg.fs src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs — FileTooLong — 2480 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1980 over it, 4.96× 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: Runtime/JsonRpc.fs src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/JsonRpc.fs — FileTooLong — 735 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 33 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 235 over it, 1.47× 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: MetaModelGenerator/GenerateTypes.fs src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateTypes.fs — FileTooLong — 675 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 175 over it, 1.35× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: Lsp/WorkspaceFolder.fs src/CSharpLanguageServer/Lsp/WorkspaceFolder.fs — FileTooLong — 597 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 36 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 97 over it, 1.19× 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.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×2
  • TooManyMethods: LspServer src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Server.fs:16 — TooManyMethods — 140 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 110 over it, 4.67× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: LspClient src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Client.fs:16 — TooManyMethods — 42 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 12 over it, 1.40× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/InlayHint.fs:703 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/InlayHint.fs:703-712 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Rename.fs:119-128 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/SignatureHelp.fs:95-104 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/InlayHint.fs:703` 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 (10 lines × 3) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSync.fs:67 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSync.fs:67-76 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSync.fs:80-89 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSync.fs:93-102 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSync.fs:62 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSync.fs:62-72 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSync.fs:100-108 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/FsLibLog.fs:449 — src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/FsLibLog.fs:449-457 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/FsLibLog.fs:482-490 — 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 `src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/FsLibLog.fs:449` 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ServerStateLoop.processServerEvent (cyclomatic 72) · ×1
  • ServerStateLoop.processServerEvent (cyclomatic 72) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/ServerStateLoop.fs:115 — ServerStateLoop.processServerEvent has cyclomatic complexity 72 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · InlayHint.toInlayHint (cyclomatic 57) · ×1
  • InlayHint.toInlayHint (cyclomatic 57) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/InlayHint.fs:238 — InlayHint.toInlayHint has cyclomatic complexity 57 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · JsonRpc.processEvent (cyclomatic 40) · ×1
  • JsonRpc.processEvent (cyclomatic 40) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/JsonRpc.fs:674 — JsonRpc.processEvent has cyclomatic complexity 40 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ErasedUnionConverter`1.Read (cyclomatic 33) · ×1
  • ErasedUnionConverter`1.Read (cyclomatic 33) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs:428 — ErasedUnionConverter`1.Read has cyclomatic complexity 33 (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 · GenerateClientServer.generateClientServer (cyclomatic 33) · ×1
  • GenerateClientServer.generateClientServer (cyclomatic 33) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateClientServer.fs:13 — GenerateClientServer.generateClientServer has cyclomatic complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SymbolKind.fromSymbol (cyclomatic 23) · ×1
  • SymbolKind.fromSymbol (cyclomatic 23) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Conversions.fs:85 — SymbolKind.fromSymbol has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CallHierarchy.outgoingCalls (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • CallHierarchy.outgoingCalls (cyclomatic 20) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs:134 — CallHierarchy.outgoingCalls has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · GenerateTypes.createField (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • GenerateTypes.createField (cyclomatic 20) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateTypes.fs:181 — GenerateTypes.createField has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · GenerateTypes.createStructure (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • GenerateTypes.createStructure (cyclomatic 20) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateTypes.fs:461 — GenerateTypes.createStructure has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · GenerateTypes.createTypeAlias (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • GenerateTypes.createTypeAlias (cyclomatic 20) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateTypes.fs:652 — GenerateTypes.createTypeAlias has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Program.entry (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • Program.entry (cyclomatic 18) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Program.fs:52 — Program.entry has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · PushDiagnostics.processPendingPushDiagnostics (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • PushDiagnostics.processPendingPushDiagnostics (cyclomatic 18) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/PushDiagnostics.fs:41 — PushDiagnostics.processPendingPushDiagnostics has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WorkspaceFolder.workspaceFolderDocumentDetails (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • WorkspaceFolder.workspaceFolderDocumentDetails (cyclomatic 16) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Lsp/WorkspaceFolder.fs:447 — WorkspaceFolder.workspaceFolderDocumentDetails has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair · ×1
  • Repeated repair: src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Solution.fs src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Solution.fs:506 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Solution.fs changed 5 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 8 (its worst body is Solution.solutionGetRazorDocumentForPath at line 506), 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(solution): honor .slnf filters in the declared-project set”; “fix(workspace): resolve multi-targeted project documents to a best-TFM flavor”; “fix(workspace): only force a TargetFramework every project declares”; “Re-enable Razor tests: upgrade Roslyn to 5.9.0 and fix hover/reference token mapping”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 10:02:10 +03:00' --until='2026-10-23 10:02:10 +03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Solution.fs`: 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 · ServerStateLoop.processServerEvent (cognitive 60) · ×1
  • ServerStateLoop.processServerEvent (cognitive 60) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/ServerStateLoop.fs:115 — ServerStateLoop.processServerEvent has cognitive complexity 60 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 19 (44 pts), if/else 7 (14 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 32). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ErasedUnionConverter`1.Read (cognitive 56) · ×1
  • ErasedUnionConverter`1.Read (cognitive 56) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs:428 — ErasedUnionConverter`1.Read has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 26 (33 pts), match/switch 8 (15 pts), error handling 5 (7 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 16). 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 · InlayHint.toInlayHint (cognitive 50) · ×1
  • InlayHint.toInlayHint (cognitive 50) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/InlayHint.fs:238 — InlayHint.toInlayHint has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 20 (32 pts), boolean chains 9, if/else 6 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CallHierarchy.outgoingCalls (cognitive 50) · ×1
  • CallHierarchy.outgoingCalls (cognitive 50) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs:134 — CallHierarchy.outgoingCalls has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 8 (40 pts), loops 2 (9 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 39). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GenerateClientServer.generateClientServer (cognitive 48) · ×1
  • GenerateClientServer.generateClientServer (cognitive 48) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateClientServer.fs:13 — GenerateClientServer.generateClientServer has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (20 pts), match/switch 7 (18 pts), loops 6 (10 pts) (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · JsonRpc.processEvent (cognitive 37) · ×1
  • JsonRpc.processEvent (cognitive 37) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/JsonRpc.fs:674 — JsonRpc.processEvent has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 12 (26 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), if/else 2 (3 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PushDiagnostics.processPendingPushDiagnostics (cognitive 33) · ×1
  • PushDiagnostics.processPendingPushDiagnostics (cognitive 33) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Runtime/PushDiagnostics.fs:41 — PushDiagnostics.processPendingPushDiagnostics has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 8 (27 pts), if/else 2 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GenerateTypes.createStructure (cognitive 32) · ×1
  • GenerateTypes.createStructure (cognitive 32) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateTypes.fs:461 — GenerateTypes.createStructure has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 9 (16 pts), match/switch 7 (15 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Diagnostic.getWorkspaceDiagnosticReports (cognitive 26) · ×1
  • Diagnostic.getWorkspaceDiagnosticReports (cognitive 26) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Diagnostic.fs:139 — Diagnostic.getWorkspaceDiagnosticReports has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 5 (11 pts), if/else 4 (6 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Completion.getCompletionsForRazorDocument (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • Completion.getCompletionsForRazorDocument (cognitive 24) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Completion.fs:239 — Completion.getCompletionsForRazorDocument has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 4 (10 pts), if/else 3 (9 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 14). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GenerateTypes.createTypeAlias (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • GenerateTypes.createTypeAlias (cognitive 24) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateTypes.fs:652 — GenerateTypes.createTypeAlias has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (10 pts), if/else 6 (8 pts), loops 2 (6 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 · GenerateTypes.createField (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • GenerateTypes.createField (cognitive 23) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator/GenerateTypes.fs:181 — GenerateTypes.createField has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1, error handling 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 · Document.normalizeDocumentEndOfFile (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • Document.normalizeDocumentEndOfFile (cognitive 22) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Document.fs:94 — Document.normalizeDocumentEndOfFile has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LspTraceLogger.Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.ILogger.Log (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • LspTraceLogger.Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.ILogger.Log (cognitive 19) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Logging.fs:30 — LspTraceLogger.Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.ILogger.Log has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), match/switch 3 (9 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 · CodeAction.getRoslynCodeActions (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • CodeAction.getRoslynCodeActions (cognitive 18) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CodeAction.fs:78 — CodeAction.getRoslynCodeActions has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: error handling 2 (6 pts), loops 3 (4 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), if/else 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CSharpMetadata.handle (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • CSharpMetadata.handle (cognitive 17) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CSharpMetadata.fs:13 — CSharpMetadata.handle has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 6 (17 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DocumentOnTypeFormatting.getSyntaxNode (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • DocumentOnTypeFormatting.getSyntaxNode (cognitive 16) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentOnTypeFormatting.fs:50 — DocumentOnTypeFormatting.getSyntaxNode has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 3 (9 pts), if/else 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). 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.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1
  • Change coupling: Implementation.fs ↔ TypeDefinition.fs src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Implementation.fs:1 — `src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Implementation.fs` and `src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/TypeDefinition.fs` 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). 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 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `57c4a492` chore: pass-in ServerSettings to workspaceFolderSymbolLocations to ma…; `937fa0c2` fix(Handlers.CSharpMetadata): make sure metadata URI works with no pr…; `ba04065d` chore(Lsp.Workspace): make `project` arg non-optional for workspaceFo… — run `git show` on any of them.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs:1 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs:1-234 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Definition.fs:1-63 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentHighlight.fs:1-110 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Implementation.fs:1-105 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Rename.fs:1-218 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/TypeDefinition.fs:1-77 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/TypeHierarchy.fs:1-194 — These 7 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (43 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (43 lines × 2) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:1738 — src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:1738-1780 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:4187-4229 — 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 `src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:1738` 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 (24–33 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (24–33 lines × 2) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:2241 — src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:2241-2264 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:4515-4547 — 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 `src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:2241` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24 lines × 6) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (24 lines × 6) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:401 — src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:401-424 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:452-475 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:687-710 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:1212-1235 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:2400-2423 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:2493-2516 — all 6 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:401` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 7) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 7) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:409 — src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:409-428 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:460-475 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:695-710 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:1220-1240 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:1994-2013 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:2408-2426 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:2501-2521 — all 7 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/Types.cg.fs:409` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Conversions.fs:139 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Conversions.fs:139-153 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Conversions.fs:171-185 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs:57 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs:57-70 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/TypeHierarchy.fs:55-68 — 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 (11–13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 2) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/TypeHierarchy.fs:105 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/TypeHierarchy.fs:105-115 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/TypeHierarchy.fs:172-184 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs:538 — src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs:538-550 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs:561-573 — 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 (12 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Conversions.fs:124 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Conversions.fs:124-135 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Conversions.fs:156-167 — 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 `src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Conversions.fs:124` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs:138 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs:138-147 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/TypeHierarchy.fs:131-139 — 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 `src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs:138` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSymbol.fs:325 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSymbol.fs:325-334 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/FoldingRange.fs:199-208 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSymbol.fs:336` calls `GetSemanticModelAsync` and `src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/FoldingRange.fs:210` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 7) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 7) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs:56 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs:56-64 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Definition.fs:44-52 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentHighlight.fs:84-92 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Implementation.fs:87-95 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Rename.fs:184-192 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/TypeDefinition.fs:47-55 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/TypeHierarchy.fs:54-62 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 7 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CallHierarchy.fs:56` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–9 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7–9 lines × 4) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentRangeFormatting.fs:53 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentRangeFormatting.fs:53-59 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/InlayHint.fs:704-712 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Rename.fs:120-128 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/SignatureHelp.fs:96-104 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–9 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7–9 lines × 3) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CodeLens.fs:125 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/CodeLens.fs:125-133 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSymbol.fs:329-335 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/FoldingRange.fs:203-209 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSymbol.fs:336` calls `GetSemanticModelAsync` and `src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/FoldingRange.fs:210` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSymbol.fs:55 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSymbol.fs:55-62 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Roslyn/Conversions.fs:107-115 — 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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–9 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7–9 lines × 2) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSync.fs:182 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSync.fs:182-188 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSync.fs:336-344 — 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 `src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentSync.fs:336` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentFormatting.fs:55 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentFormatting.fs:55-62 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentOnTypeFormatting.fs:76-83 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentRangeFormatting.fs:47-54 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/DocumentFormatting.fs:55` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs:328 — src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs:328-335 | src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/src/JsonUtils.fs:339-346 — 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 (7 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Workspace.fs:161 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Workspace.fs:161-167 | src/CSharpLanguageServer/Handlers/Workspace.fs:176-182 — 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.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — test suite did not build — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.
Minor — 15 finding(s)
M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×5
  • README/code drift src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md:8 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md links to `LICENSE`, but `src/CSharpLanguageServer/LICENSE` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md:26 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md links to `docs/features.md`, but `src/CSharpLanguageServer/docs/features.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md:29 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md links to `docs/troubleshooting.md`, but `src/CSharpLanguageServer/docs/troubleshooting.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md:32 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md links to `CONTRIBUTING.md`, but `src/CSharpLanguageServer/CONTRIBUTING.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md:34 — src/CSharpLanguageServer/README.md links to `docs/codebase-architecture.md`, but `src/CSharpLanguageServer/docs/codebase-architecture.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×1
  • Outdated: coverlet.collector Directory.Packages.props:20 — coverlet.collector 6.0.4 → 10.1.0 available (referenced by CSharpLanguageServer.Tests).
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/`.
D27 · Navigability · Scattered collaborators · ×1
  • Scattered collaborators — 94 % of calls cross a namespace and only 57 % of collaborators are co-located — group each feature's code into a vertical slice so a call's collaborators sit together.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
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.
M3 · Folder & project structure · Inconsistent root namespaces · ×1
  • Inconsistent root namespaces — Only 14/31 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.
P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1
  • Logging is not universal — Only 2/3 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `src/Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol/tools/MetaModelGenerator`.
Minor — 15 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×15
  • Outdated: DotNet.ReproducibleBuilds — DotNet.ReproducibleBuilds 1.2.25 → 2.0.5 available (referenced by CSharpLanguageServer).
  • Outdated: FSharp.Control.AsyncSeq — FSharp.Control.AsyncSeq 3.2.1 → 4.15.0 available (referenced by CSharpLanguageServer).
  • Outdated: ICSharpCode.Decompiler — ICSharpCode.Decompiler 9.1.0.7988 → 11.1.0.9782 available (referenced by CSharpLanguageServer).
  • Outdated: Ionide.KeepAChangelog.Tasks — Ionide.KeepAChangelog.Tasks 0.1.8 → 0.4.0 available (referenced by CSharpLanguageServer).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Build — Microsoft.Build 18.7.1 → 18.11.0 available (referenced by CSharpLanguageServer).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Build.Framework — Microsoft.Build.Framework 18.7.1 → 18.11.0 available (referenced by CSharpLanguageServer).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Build.Locator — Microsoft.Build.Locator 1.10.12 → 1.11.2 available (referenced by CSharpLanguageServer).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory — Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory 10.0.9 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by CSharpLanguageServer).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging 10.0.9 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by CSharpLanguageServer).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Console — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Console 10.0.9 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by CSharpLanguageServer).
  • Outdated: NuGet.Frameworks — NuGet.Frameworks 6.14.0 → 7.9.0 available (referenced by CSharpLanguageServer).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 17.14.1 → 18.11.0 available (referenced by CSharpLanguageServer.Tests).
  • Outdated: NUnit — NUnit 4.6.1 → 5.0.0 available (referenced by CSharpLanguageServer.Tests).
  • Outdated: NUnit3TestAdapter — NUnit3TestAdapter 6.2.0 → 6.3.1 available (referenced by CSharpLanguageServer.Tests).
  • Outdated: System.Text.Json — System.Text.Json 10.0.8 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by Ionide.LanguageServerProtocol).

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.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-c6265aaadcc84d64a439928590745b9b/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/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-c6265aaadcc84d64a439928590745b9b/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/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 .8artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet list csharp-language-server.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json0artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: 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.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-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 Confinementruntime-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 Enforcementruntime-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 Dependenciesnone (no readable dependency manifest)—none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).0—

Run 01a16a3d-954c-7204-bc9a-0070c5becd67 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 12 · Warnings: 75 · Recommendations: 15 · Info: 15 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 23-10-2026 @ 19:29 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md