Public report of reactiveui/ReactiveUI, 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, 09:33 UTC · Survey ID cd_462e971cb7b84f9b887e85539073b91e

reactiveui/ReactiveUI

Measured 23 October 2026, 09:29 UTC, at code version 721f544

No regression since the last survey Code coverage: not measuredBoundary Type-Coupling: 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: No coverage collector is wired up.

Boundary Type-Coupling is not measured: Bounded contexts not declared.

CAI score 62out of 100 Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
No change since the last survey

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

Architecture 99 Exemplary Production Readiness 70 Strong Code Health 70 Strong Performance 70 Strong Maturity 62 Adequate Security and Compliance 55 Adequate

A medium codebase: 51,075 lines of product code in 274 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.7 person-years · Weakest lens: Security and Compliance, 55

Findings by how serious they are

38 critical 193 serious 75 minor

7 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, 09:29 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 ▸

70of 75 dimensions measured by tools. The other 5 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
289of 306 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 17 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
75dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 51,075 lines of product code in 274 projects.
Chapters

Executive summary

reactiveui/ReactiveUI scores 62 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while four of its six lenses score higher still: Architecture at 99, rated Exemplary, and Performance, Code Health and Production Readiness at 70, all rated Strong.

The score is lower than those four because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Security and Compliance, which scores 55 and is rated Adequate. Its Supply-chain Provenance & Signing dimension scores 2.5 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Security and Compliance can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault and to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality, and if Security and Compliance rose to 70, the score would rise from 62 to about 67.

38 findings are critical: 24 in Explicit Debt, seven in Static Analysis (SAST), three in Secrets (history), two in Project dependency cycles and two in Test Quality.

Watchdog couldn't measure 4 dimensions in this code, among them Test Reliability, Dependency Hygiene and IL Efficiency, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 51,075 lines, which would take an estimated 0.7 person-years, around €110,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 70 Strong Architecture 99 ★ Exemplary Maturity 62 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 70 Strong Security and Compliance 55 Adequate, capped by Supply-chain Provenance & Signing and Data Protection Performance 70 Strong

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.
Security and Compliance 55 · counts for 46%Maturity 62 · counts for 25%Performance 70 · counts for 14%Code Health 70 · counts for 8%Production Readiness 70 · counts for 4%Architecture 99 · counts for 2%

If Security and Compliance rose from 55 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 62 to about 67.

Code composition: what the lines of code are
Business logic 7%Supporting code 30%Tests 63%Generated by tools 0%
New since the last survey: 9 findings

These 9 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: 98 findings

These 98 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ScheduleAsync src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorWasm/ViewModels/SchedulerProbeViewModel.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunSynchronousCommand src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsynchronousCommand src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: HandleErrors src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: LogDeskEventsInBackground src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryBackgroundExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: FlagOverdueBooksInBackground src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryBackgroundExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CountBooksOnShelfInBackground src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryBackgroundExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SearchCatalogueInBackground src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryBackgroundExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CountBooksOnShelf src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: FlagOverdueBooks src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SearchCatalogue src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CombineEndOfDayTasks src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ReturnAllBooksTask src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ReturnAllBooksWithCountTask src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RefreshLocalCacheTask src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SendRenewalReceiptTask src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RenewLoanTask src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SendRenewalReceiptCancellableTask src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: BorrowBookCancellableTask src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ObserveThrownExceptions src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandTypeExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: DeriveFromCommandBase src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandTypeExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SubscribeAWitnessToACommandsResults src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandTypeExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SubscribeAWitnessThroughTheBaseType src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandTypeExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: DeriveCombinedCommand src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandTypeExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: AcceptAnyCommand src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandTypeExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: TrackSwappedCommandResults src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/SwitchSubscribeExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: TrackSwappedCommandResultsWithHandlers src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/SwitchSubscribeExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: TrackSwappedCommandIsExecuting src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/SwitchSubscribeExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: TrackSwappedCommandIsExecutingWithHandlers src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/SwitchSubscribeExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SelectSwappedCommandIsExecuting src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/SwitchSubscribeExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: BindOneWay src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-binding/DataBindingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ConvertWhileBinding src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-binding/DataBindingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: BindAnObservable src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-binding/DataBindingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: DummyDriverDoesNothing src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/SuspensionExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ReportAnUnwatchedCommandError src/examples/Documentation/Pages/default-exception-handler/DefaultExceptionHandlerExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ConfirmADelete src/examples/Documentation/Pages/interactions/InteractionExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: LetTheNewestHandlerAnswer src/examples/Documentation/Pages/interactions/InteractionExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: FailWhenNobodyAnswers src/examples/Documentation/Pages/interactions/InteractionExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: BindTheViewsHandler src/examples/Documentation/Pages/interactions/InteractionExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ConstructWithoutAnExplicitScheduler src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reactive-property/SubscriptionBehaviorExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: PersistsASingleTrackAfterAnExplicitQuietPeriod src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reflection/AutoPersistReflectionExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ManualSaveSignalForcesASingleTrackToSave src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reflection/AutoPersistReflectionExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CollectionOverloadsDifferOnlyByInterval src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reflection/AutoPersistReflectionExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CollectionManualSaveOverloads src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reflection/AutoPersistReflectionExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ReadOnlyCollectionManualSaveOverloads src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reflection/AutoPersistReflectionExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SaveAndLoadThroughTheUntypedDriver src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reflection/SuspensionReflectionExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: StartAndStopWorkOnAPage src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/CookingTimerExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ObserveArrivalAndDeparture src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/CookingTimerExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ObserveAPageThatIsOnTheStackTwice src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/CookingTimerExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: NavigateAndGoBack src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/RoutingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: EnableTheBackButton src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/RoutingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: WatchWhetherYouCanGoBack src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/RoutingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: WatchTheStack src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/RoutingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowTheViewForTheCurrentPage src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/RoutingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ResetTheStack src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/RoutingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: AwaitNavigationOnABackgroundSequencer src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/RoutingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: TellAPushFromAPop src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/RoutingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: WatchEachAddAndRemove src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/RoutingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: TrackPagesEnteringAndLeavingTheStack src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/RoutingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: FindAPageOfAGivenType src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/RoutingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ReadTheTopOfTheStack src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/RoutingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: OpenListAsync src/examples/Documentation/Pages/routing/RoutingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: DownloadOnTaskpoolShowOnMainThread src/examples/Documentation/Pages/scheduling/RxSchedulerExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ComputeAverageAsyncUnderATestScheduler src/examples/Documentation/Pages/testing/SchedulerExtensionsExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RecordAGradeAsyncUnderATestScheduler src/examples/Documentation/Pages/testing/SchedulerExtensionsExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: StepAGradeRecorderPhaseByPhase src/examples/Documentation/Pages/testing/TestSequencerExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: DeriveFilteredList src/examples/Documentation/Pages/view-models/OutputPropertyExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CountWhatIsLeft src/examples/Documentation/Pages/view-models/OutputPropertyExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ReportCommandProgress src/examples/Documentation/Pages/view-models/OutputPropertyExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SearchAsTheUserTypes src/examples/Documentation/Pages/view-models/RepositorySearchExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ReactivateToRefresh src/examples/Documentation/Pages/when-activated/WhenActivatedExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunScenario src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-android/MainActivity.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ReportFirstLessonAbsent src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-android/WeekdayPagerActivity.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: NavigatingTheRouterPushesEachPage src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-maui/RoutedViewHostExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SyncingPushesTheRouterStackOntoTheNavigationPage src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-maui/RoutedViewHostExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: InvalidatingRefreshesTheCurrentPagesViewModel src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-maui/RoutedViewHostExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RoutedViewHostUnsafePushesThePage src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-maui/ServiceLocatorViewExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: BindTheSearchBoxAndResultsList src/examples/Documentation/Pages/getting-started/AppViewBindingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ThrottleAndDeduplicateSearchInput src/examples/Documentation/Pages/getting-started/SearchPipelineExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SwitchToTheLatestSearch src/examples/Documentation/Pages/getting-started/SearchPipelineExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: TrackAvailabilityFromResults src/examples/Documentation/Pages/getting-started/SearchPipelineExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ReportSearchErrorsWithThrownExceptions src/examples/Documentation/Pages/getting-started/SearchPipelineExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: AvoidStartingAsyncWorkFromSubscribe src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/AsynchronousCommandsExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: PreferAnAsyncCommand src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/AsynchronousCommandsExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SubmitGradesAsync src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/AsynchronousCommandsExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: PreferTheCommandSuffix src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/CommandNamesExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SaveImplAsync src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/CommandNamesExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SearchImplAsync src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/CommandNamesExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: PreferBindingToACommand src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/CommandsExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: PreferHandlingThrownExceptions src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/IndexExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: PreferAwaitingAsyncWork src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/IndexExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: AvoidWitnessOnAfterEveryStep src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/ThreadingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: PreferWitnessOnAtTheBoundary src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/ThreadingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: PreferLettingTheCommandMarshalItsResults src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/ThreadingExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: AvoidUpdatingWithoutMarshaling src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/UiThreadAndSchedulersExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: PreferWitnessOnAtTheBoundary src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/UiThreadAndSchedulersExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: PreferPassingTheSchedulerToTheOperation src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/UiThreadAndSchedulersExamples.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: FetchLatestGradeOnAsync src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/UiThreadAndSchedulersExamples.cs
Rebuild cost: about €110,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild€36,000 to €180,000, for 603 to 1,905 hours of work, about 0.7 person-years for 1 to 2 engineers
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×0.8 at a score of 62. 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: 51,075 lines of product code
Comment linesThe estimate prices 32,407 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 51,075 lines but aren't priced as work.

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.

Top priorities

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

1
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault.
Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Raises the score by about 6 points · Medium effort · Data Protection
2
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 3 points · Low effort · ADR Quality
3
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.
Raises the score by about 2 points · Low effort · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing

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 €110,000 to build again, about 0.7 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Security and Compliance, at 55 (Adequate). Security and Compliance is about how well the product is protected, and how it handles personal data. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Security and Compliance also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Security and Compliance grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Security and Compliance actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 6 points for medium effort. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Each box is a bounded context (its layer projects grouped, or a project count when large); arrows show dependencies between contexts. A shared kernel is where many arrows converge.

arch ReactiveUI ReactiveUI ReactiveUI.Core Core ReactiveUI->ReactiveUI.Core ReactiveUI.AndroidX AndroidX ReactiveUI.AndroidX->ReactiveUI ReactiveUI.AndroidX.Reactive Reactive ReactiveUI.Reactive Reactive ReactiveUI.AndroidX.Reactive->ReactiveUI.Reactive ReactiveUI.Blazor Blazor ReactiveUI.Blazor->ReactiveUI ReactiveUI.Blazor.Reactive Reactive ReactiveUI.Blazor.Reactive->ReactiveUI.Reactive ReactiveUI.Blend Blend ReactiveUI.Blend->ReactiveUI ReactiveUI.Blend.Reactive Reactive ReactiveUI.Blend.Reactive->ReactiveUI.Reactive ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorServer BlazorServer ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorServer->ReactiveUI.Blazor ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorWasm BlazorWasm ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorWasm->ReactiveUI.Blazor ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp WpfApp ReactiveUI.Wpf Wpf ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp->ReactiveUI.Wpf ReactiveUI.Drawing Drawing ReactiveUI.Drawing->ReactiveUI ReactiveUI.Drawing.Reactive Reactive ReactiveUI.Drawing.Reactive->ReactiveUI.Reactive ReactiveUI.Maui Maui ReactiveUI.Maui->ReactiveUI ReactiveUI.Maui.Reactive Reactive ReactiveUI.Maui.Reactive->ReactiveUI.Reactive ReactiveUI.Reactive->ReactiveUI.Core ReactiveUI.Testing Testing ReactiveUI.Testing->ReactiveUI ReactiveUI.WinUI WinUI ReactiveUI.WinUI->ReactiveUI ReactiveUI.Wpf->ReactiveUI platform-blend-drawing platform-blend-drawing platform-blend-drawing->ReactiveUI.Blend platform-blend-drawing->ReactiveUI.Drawing platform-blend-drawing->ReactiveUI.Wpf __more__ +32 more projects

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.

45 modules, with 42 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 6 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 5 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 Blazor.Internal2 Blend3 Drawing4 Helpers5 Internal6 Reactive.Blazor.Internal7 Reactive.Blend8 Reactive.Drawing9 Reactive.Internal10 Reactive.Wpf11 Reactive.Wpf.Binding12 Tests13 Tests.Utilities.Sequencing14 Wpf15 Interfaces16 Maui.Internal17 Reactive.Interfaces18 Reactive.Maui.Internal19 ReactiveUI20 AndroidX21 Blazor22 Builder23 Maui24 Reactive25 Testing26 WinUI27 Winforms28 Benchmarks29 Reactive.AndroidX30 Reactive.Blazor31 Reactive.Builder32 Reactive.Maui33 Reactive.WinUI34 Reactive.Winforms35 Tests.Utilities.AppBuilder36 Tests.Utilities.Combined37 Tests.Utilities.Logging38 Tests.Utilities.MessageBus39 Tests.Utilities.Schedulers40 Tests.Utilities.SuspensionHost
1 Blazor.Internal
2 Blend
3 Drawing
4 Helpers
5 Internal
6 Reactive.Blazor.Internal
7 Reactive.Blend
8 Reactive.Drawing
9 Reactive.Internal
10 Reactive.Wpf
11 Reactive.Wpf.Binding
12 Tests
13 Tests.Utilities.Sequencing
14 Wpf
15 Interfaces1
16 Maui.Internal1
17 Reactive.Interfaces1
18 Reactive.Maui.Internal1
19 ReactiveUI21
20 AndroidX24
21 Blazor44
22 Builder6
23 Maui4
24 Reactive2143
25 Testing1
26 WinUI2
27 Winforms13
28 Benchmarks19
29 Reactive.AndroidX24
30 Reactive.Blazor44
31 Reactive.Builder15
32 Reactive.Maui4
33 Reactive.WinUI2
34 Reactive.Winforms13
35 Tests.Utilities.AppBuilder2
36 Tests.Utilities.Combined111
37 Tests.Utilities.Logging11
38 Tests.Utilities.MessageBus311
39 Tests.Utilities.Schedulers22
40 Tests.Utilities.SuspensionHost1
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
1 Blazor.Internal2 Blend3 Drawing4 Helpers5 Internal6 Reactive.Blazor.Internal7 Reactive.Blend8 Reactive.Drawing9 Reactive.Internal10 Reactive.Wpf11 Reactive.Wpf.Binding12 Tests13 Tests.Utilities.Sequencing14 Wpf15 Interfaces16 Maui.Internal17 Reactive.Interfaces18 Reactive.Maui.Internal19 ReactiveUI20 AndroidX21 Blazor22 Builder23 Maui24 Reactive25 Testing26 WinUI27 Winforms28 Benchmarks29 Reactive.AndroidX30 Reactive.Blazor31 Reactive.Builder32 Reactive.Maui33 Reactive.WinUI34 Reactive.Winforms35 Tests.Utilities.AppBuilder36 Tests.Utilities.Combined37 Tests.Utilities.Logging38 Tests.Utilities.MessageBus39 Tests.Utilities.Schedulers40 Tests.Utilities.SuspensionHostBlazor.Internal1Blend2Drawing3Helpers4Internal5Reactive.Blazor.Internal6Reactive.Blend7Reactive.Drawing8Reactive.Internal9Reactive.Wpf10Reactive.Wpf.Binding11Tests12Tests.Utilities.Sequencing13Wpf14Interfaces15Maui.Internal16Reactive.Interfaces17Reactive.Maui.Internal18ReactiveUI19AndroidX20Blazor21Builder22Maui23Reactive24Testing25WinUI26Winforms27Benchmarks28Reactive.AndroidX29Reactive.Blazor30Reactive.Builder31Reactive.Maui32Reactive.WinUI33Reactive.Winforms34Tests.Utilities.AppBuilder35Tests.Utilities.Combined36Tests.Utilities.Logging37Tests.Utilities.MessageBus38Tests.Utilities.Schedulers39Tests.Utilities.SuspensionHost4011112124446421431213192444154213211111311221+5 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 70% · Strong ·

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 10.0 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 9.8 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.3 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 8.5 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 10.0 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 7.1 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X32 · Repo Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 9.0
The Bad
X1 · Repo Async correctness 6.9
The Ugly
X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 4.7

At a glance — Architecture · 99% · Exemplary ·

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 9.9 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.8 D22 · .NET / C# Internal API Consistency 9.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.8 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 9.8 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 62% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 9.1 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 9.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 10.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 9.4
The Bad
M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.0
The Ugly
D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 70% · Strong ·

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 9.9 D13 · .NET / C# REDACTED Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 10.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 8.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0
The Bad
P2 · Repo Observability 5.9 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

At a glance — Security · 55% · Adequate · gated by D36, C1 ·

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 7.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 7.6 D37 · .NET / C# Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 10.0 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 10.0 C3 · Repo Audit Trail 7.5 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 10.0
The Ugly
D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 2.5 C1 · Repo Data Protection 3.0

At a glance — Performance · 70% · Strong ·

The Good
PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 10.0
The Bad
PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.1 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 6.0

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 — Injection9High / Critical
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures4High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures3Medium

Roadmap

First, secure sensitive data by implementing encryption at rest and managing keys in a vault, while establishing a structural audit trail that routes all sensitive changes through a single write path to an immutable log. Next, address the lack of architectural decision records by documenting key design choices with their context and consequences in a dedicated folder. Finally, resolve the missing software bill of materials to ensure supply-chain provenance and signing are properly established.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).+5.7 ptsMediumData Protection
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+2.7 ptsLowADR Quality
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+2.3 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+2.3 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+2.3 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED.+2.1 ptsLowSecrets (history)
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.+1.9 ptsLowStatic Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2).+1.5 ptsLowStatic Analysis (SAST)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 93 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 41% mixed · 59% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig5.2MixedExplicit Debt: AnalyzerSeverityNone
src/examples/.editorconfig5.8MixedExplicit Debt: AnalyzerSeverityNone
REDACTED5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: DeadPreprocessorBranch
.editorconfig6.4MixedExplicit Debt: AnalyzerSeverityNone
src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ReactivePage.cs6.5MixedExplicit Debt: DeadPreprocessorBranch
src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveProperty/ReactiveProperty.cs6.6MixedExplicit Debt: CoverageExclusion
src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ReactiveUserControl.cs6.6MixedExplicit Debt: DeadPreprocessorBranch
REDACTED6.9MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs7.0MixedCode Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (20 members, 50+ identical tokens)
src/ReactiveUI.Blazor/ReactiveComponentBase.cs7.0MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (63 lines × 3)
src/tests/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Tests/Wpf/ValidationBindingWpfTest.cs7.1MixedTest Quality: Test cannot fail: Dispose_ClearsBinding
src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs7.1MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (20–22 lines × 2)
src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/SuspensionExamples.cs7.2MixedCode Duplication: Near-duplicate member pair (24 shared lines)
REDACTED7.2MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED

How the grades work

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

Critical — 38

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 — 193

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 — 75

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

Could not be resolved — 7

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. 70 of 75 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 75 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D22D24D26D28D29D34D35D36D37D44AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6AX8C1C3GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6PF1PF2PF3X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X2X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X5

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, 289 of 306 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 01a16817-e9e6-7121-9388-156ee3e27224.

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 analyzer environment could not build/run the test suite (a target framework / SDK band or targeting pack the analyzer image doesn't carry), so no test ever ran. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — it is excluded from the score. We track the analyzer-image gap so it can be closed.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `dotnet list package` did not return usable output (restore or query failed); no outdated/vulnerable/deprecated data to assess. The tool said: `dotnet list package` exited 1 with no output.
  • 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: Msbuild failed when processing the file 'src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveUI.AndroidX.csproj' with message: The target platform identifier android was not recognized.
  • D18 Solution Shape — 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 build did not finish within its budget on this run; structural metrics are reported, build/warning status is unknown.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — 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. Large codebase (51,019 production LoC in the .NET projects) with no declared bounded contexts — cross-boundary type coupling is unassessed Bounded contexts cannot be inferred from a codebase that is not physically organised by them (D-321), so with none declared there are no boundaries for the coupling pass to measure across. You can widen what we reach: name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `src/Polyfills/CallerArgumentExpressionAttribute.cs`, `src/Polyfills/DoesNotReturnIfAttribute.cs`, `src/Polyfills/DynamicallyAccessedMemberTypes.cs`, `src/Polyfills/DynamicallyAccessedMembersAttribute.cs`, `src/Polyfills/IsExternalInit.cs`, … (+302 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — 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. IL NOT MEASURED: the analyzer's own build of this repository failed for an ENVIRONMENT reason (exit 1) — MSBuild's engine or the CLR gave up, or our image does not carry the SDK band/targeting pack this repository needs. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo, and it is not a statement that this repository fails to build. D18 owns the question of whether this repository builds; it was not answered here.
  • AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — 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. Subject: a native UI project (src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Reactive/Themes/Generic.xaml). The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, a Dockerfile, an npm dev script, a web service's own toolchain entry point (cargo, go, dotnet, Python, Spring Boot), or an Android app's own Gradle wrapper (run on an emulator); an Apple or Flutter app needs a host it lacks. None applied, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — 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. 48 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 88.
  • Package restore incomplete — third-party types were unresolved in part of the solution — NuGet restore did not complete for src/benchmarks/ReactiveUI.Benchmarks/ReactiveUI.Benchmarks.csproj, src/benchmarks/ReactiveUI.Benchmarks.Reactive/ReactiveUI.Benchmarks.Reactive.csproj, src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorServer/ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorServer.csproj, src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorWasm/ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorWasm.csproj, src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp/ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp.csproj and 68 more, so those projects were analysed with framework references only: every check keyed on a third-party type saw an error type there and reported nothing. Findings on those projects are a lower bound; run `dotnet restore` on them and rescan.

Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.

Per-dimension blind spots

For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • 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.
  • C3 Audit Trail: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — a working control configured outside the repository leaves no signal a static scan can credit.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D21, D22, D24, 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 Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

D3 · God Classes9.8 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ 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 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: ReactiveCommand · ×2src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveCommand/ReactiveCommand.cs

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with ReactiveCommand.cs, ReactiveUIBuilder.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. 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 Duplication9.3 / 10Stronggated by 73 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 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

70 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 3 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. 34 of the 73 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×6src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Suspension/SuspensionHost.cs:40
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×5src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:133
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×4src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/MutableDependencyResolverAOTExtensions.cs:45
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×4src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/ViewModelViewHost.cs:133
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×4src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:427

+ 32 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with SuspensionHost.cs, RoutedViewHost.cs, ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with RoutedViewHost.cs, PanelSetMethodBindingConverter.cs, ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with MutableDependencyResolverAOTExtensions.cs (2), CollectionPersistExamples.cs, FileJsonSuspensionDriver.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 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 · Coupling9.9 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: ReactiveUI(net8.0) · ×2src/ReactiveUI/ReactiveUI.csproj:1

What to do

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

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

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.8 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ 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 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 of 114 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: LibraryForm (LCOM4 5) · ×2src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-winforms/LibraryForm.cs:16

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with LibraryForm.cs, ViewModelViewHost.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.

Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.

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

8594 test methods: 8594 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality9.9 / 10Adequategated by 2 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.

Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.

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

0 skipped, 10 zero-assertion, 4 excluded from compilation in 2 file(s), 10 whose failure is swallowed by a catch-all, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 2049 tests.

Tests excluded from compilation: src/tests/ReactiveUI.WinForms.Tests/ReactiveUIBuilderWinFormsTests.cs · ×2src/tests/ReactiveUI.WinForms.Tests/ReactiveUIBuilderWinFormsTests.cs:15
Test cannot fail: WithoutViewModel_ShowsTheDefaultContent · ×10src/tests/ReactiveUI.Device.Tests/Platforms/iOS/Tests/ViewModelViewHostTests.cs:149
No assertions: ReactiveActivity_DeactivatedFiresWhenTheActivityPauses · ×5src/tests/ReactiveUI.Device.Tests/Platforms/Android/Tests/ActivationTests.cs:30

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Tests excluded from compilation finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ReactiveUIBuilderWinFormsTests.cs, ObservableAsPropertyHelperModeTests.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 10 Test cannot fail finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ValidationBindingWpfTest.cs (6), ViewModelViewHostTests.cs (3), ValidationBindingMixinsTest.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 5 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ActivationTests.cs (2), RxTestTests.cs, ScheduledSubjectTest.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

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

REDACTED scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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 1 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: every package graded here is one this repository's MSBuild projects declare as a direct `PackageReference` (47 declared), and nothing beyond them was reached — this is the DECLARATION-SITE set, NOT the transitive closure. .NET has no lockfile a checkout is guaranteed to carry and this pass grades an unrestored tree, so a banned licence that only a direct dependency's OWN dependencies pull in is outside this verdict, exactly as the JVM arm's declaration-site verdict is.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor9.1 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

19 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/TransitioningContentControl.cs. Counted over 204 of the 353 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D17 · Explicit Debt8.5 / 10Adequategated by 24 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

64 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 51019 LoC in the .NET projects (0.7/KLoC) → score 8.5. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped.

AnalyzerSeverityNone · ×23.editorconfig:760
NoWarnInCsprojsrc/Directory.Build.targets:15
CoverageExclusion · ×23src/Polyfills/CallerArgumentExpressionAttribute.cs:18
DeadPreprocessorBranch · ×17src/ReactiveUI.Shared/RxSchedulers.cs:102

What to do

  1. Resolve the 23 AnalyzerSeverityNone finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with .editorconfig (23). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (23 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Directory.Build.targets. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 23 CoverageExclusion finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ReactiveProperty.cs (4), CallerArgumentExpressionAttribute.cs, DoesNotReturnIfAttribute.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (23 warning-level).
  4. 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.

D18 · Solution Shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.

Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.

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

272 projects, 7708 source files, 89452 hand-written lines of code (49837 production / 39615 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), plus 172 generated (machine-written code — designer, scaffolded and tool-emitted files — excluded from quality), 324 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md.

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README and four example directories document the ReactiveUI framework across its many cross-platform projects (AndroidX, Blazor, Blend, Core, Drawing, Maui, WinForms, WinUI, WPF) with excellent branding, a clear What-is-ReactiveUI section, and an exhaustive coverage of every package's XML documentation. The README.md is clipped mid-sentence in the 'Your first view model' heading, so its outline sections are presumed present but not flagged as missing; the visible content (What-is-ReactiveUI, Your first view model) is clear and complete for a root-level overview. The src/examples/README.md documents only that directory's examples without referencing the repository-wide project, which is consistent with its own scope.

XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.AndroidX(net10.0-android36.0) · ×55src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveUI.AndroidX.csproj

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d19_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.

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyStronggated by 1 serious finding◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

1 API inconsistencies across 98 exposed types.

Ambiguous naming convention for time advancement. 'AdvanceTo' typically implies setting an absolute time position, while 'AdvanceBy' implies adding a duration. However, without documentation, the distinction is subtle and prone to misuse if the user confuses absolute vs relative semantics. In many Rx testing libraries, these are distinct, but the naming here is slightly inconsistent with common conventions where 'AdvanceTo' is absolute and 'AdvanceBy' is relative, yet both take 'milliseconds' which could be interpreted either way depending on the scheduler's current state.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Ambiguous naming convention for time advancement. 'AdvanceTo' typically… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

D24 · Comment ValueExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.

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

23 valuable / 0 redundant across 200 sampled comments.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d24_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 75 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)7.0 / 10Adequategated by 3 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

3 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)7.6 / 10Adequategated by 7 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

9 finding(s): 0 critical, 7 high, 2 medium, 0 low. 6 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 377 file(s) — `src/Polyfills/CallerArgumentExpressionAttribute.cs` (line 37), `src/Polyfills/DoesNotReturnIfAttribute.cs` (lines 37–38), `src/Polyfills/DynamicallyAccessedMemberTypes.cs` (lines 79–80), `src/Polyfills/DynamicallyAccessedMembersAttribute.cs` (lines 43–44), `src/Polyfills/IsExternalInit.cs` (lines 18–24), … (+372 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. In 71 of those file(s) — `src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactivePagerAdapter{TViewModel,TCollection}.cs`, `src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveRecyclerViewAdapter{TViewModel,TCollection}.cs`, `src/ReactiveUI.Core/ChangeSets/ChangeSetExtensions.cs`, `src/ReactiveUI.Core/ChangeSets/CollectionChangedExtensions.cs`, `src/ReactiveUI.Core/Comparers/ChainedComparer.cs`, … (+66 more) — the break is a C# primary constructor, which semgrep's grammar cannot parse and which hides the type from every rule scoped to it; those files were re-scanned from a shadow copy with the constructor's parameter list blanked (line and column preserving), which restores the type to the rules, and 0 additional row(s) came from that pass. Only the header's own parameter list is unread in them. In 12 of those file(s) — `src/ReactiveUI.Core/ChangeSets/ChangeSetExtensions.cs`, `src/ReactiveUI.Core/Comparers/ComparerChainingExtensions.cs`, `src/ReactiveUI.Core/Mixins/ChangeSetMixins.cs`, `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Activation/ViewForMixins.cs`, `src/benchmarks/ReactiveUI.Benchmarks/NavigationBenchmarks.cs`, … (+7 more) — the break is at a TYPE DECLARATION (a C# primary constructor semgrep's grammar cannot parse), so the loss is wider than the named lines: rules scoped to that type see no type to scope to and are blind over its whole body, while rules matching statements keep working there. Absence of a type-scoped finding in those types is not evidence of anything. 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
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  3. No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 6 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 (6 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.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 204 of the 353 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 Coupling10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: ReactiveComponentBase.cs↔ReactiveLayoutComponentBase.cs 91%

Change coupling: ReactiveComponentBase.cs ↔ ReactiveLayoutComponentBase.cssrc/ReactiveUI.Blazor/ReactiveComponentBase.cs:1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with ReactiveComponentBase.cs. — 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 & Signing2.5 / 10Weak✓ 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 2.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md.

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 52 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.

AX1 · Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.

Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.

AX10 · Code composition9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.

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

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

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

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.

  • The namespaces ReactiveUI ↔ ReactiveUI.Interfaces ↔ ReactiveUI.Maui.Internal depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is ReactiveUI → ReactiveUI.Maui.Internal (ReactiveUI.RoutedViewHost → ReactiveUI.Maui.Internal.IMauiRoutedViewHost, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:13
  • The namespaces ReactiveUI.Reactive ↔ ReactiveUI.Reactive.Interfaces ↔ ReactiveUI.Reactive.Maui.Internal depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is ReactiveUI.Reactive → ReactiveUI.Reactive.Maui.Internal (ReactiveUI.Reactive.RoutedViewHost → ReactiveUI.Reactive.Maui.Internal.IMauiRoutedViewHost, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:11

What to do

  • Break namespace cycles inside a project by moving the shared type to a namespace both sides can use, or by inverting the back edge behind an interface.
AX5 · Architecture & structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.

Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.

AX6 · Interface segregation9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.

  • `IReactiveUIBuilder` declares 53 members: `WithMessageBus`, `WithMessageBus`, `WithMessageBus`, `ConfigureSuspensionDriver`, `ConfigureViewLocator`, `ForCustomPlatform`, `ForPlatforms`, `RegisterSingletonView`, `RegisterSingletonViewModel`, `RegisterView`, `RegisterViewModel`, `RegisterConstantViewModel`, `WithMainThreadScheduler`, `WithMainThreadScheduler`, `WithPlatformModule`, `WithPlatformServices`, `WithRegistration`, `WithRegistrationOnBuild`, `WithTaskPoolScheduler`, `WithTaskPoolScheduler`, `WithExceptionHandler`, `WithSuspensionHost`, `WithSuspensionHost`, `WithCacheSizes`, `WithConverter`, `WithConverter`, `WithConverter`, `WithConverter`, `WithFallbackConverter`, `WithFallbackConverter`, `WithSetMethodConverter`, `WithSetMethodConverter`, `WithConvertersFrom`, `WithViewsFromAssembly`, `UsingSplatModule`, `Build`, `BuildApp`, `WithInstance`, `WithInstance`, `WithInstance`, and 13 more. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. Those 53 declarations carry 28 distinct name(s), so part of the width is overloading rather than separate responsibilities — but 28 operations clears the >15 bar on its own, so the row is about responsibilities, not signatures. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/IReactiveUIBuilder.cs:45

What to do

  • Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
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.

C1 · Data Protection3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.

  • No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.

What to do

  • Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
C3 · Audit Trail7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether changes to sensitive data are recorded (who, what, when) for compliance + incident response.

Method: Roslyn scan: audit-trail mechanism graded (SaveChanges interceptor/immutable AuditLog/[Audited] strong; bare IAuditable/AddAuditing weak). Deterministic.

  • An audit mechanism is present, but the trail is not yet complete — missing: a write-side hook (the one code path every change to the sensitive data flows through, recording who changed what), [Audited] per-entity coverage.

What to do

  • Back the audit convention with a structural mechanism: route every sensitive change through one write path that records it to an immutable audit log with the acting user and time, and apply [Audited] to the entities that need a who-changed-what trail.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in 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.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

M1 · Documentation (README)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • 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 74 of 75 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

M4 · Documentation accuracy9.4 / 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.

  • README.md installs the package `ReactiveUI.WPF` (`dotnet add package ReactiveUI.WPF`), but no project or props file references it. 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.md:37
  • README.md names the project `ReactiveUI.Routing`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. 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.md:173
  • README.md names the project `ReactiveUI.Avalonia`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. 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.md:193

What to do

  • Reconcile the README with reality: README.md installs the package `ReactiveUI.WPF` (`dotnet add package ReactiveUI.WPF`), but no project or props file references it; README.md names the project `ReactiveUI.Routing`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; README.md names the project `ReactiveUI.Avalonia`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists.
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.

P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

P2 · Observability5.9 / 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.

What to do

  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to do

  • Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
PF1 · Benchmark discipline10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

What to do

  • Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 10 use(s) across 58,112 production line(s) (~0.2/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

  • 4 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one). (×2) — src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp/App.xaml.cs:62, src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp/App.xaml.cs:75
  • `delivered.Wait()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one). — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/message-bus/RegisterSchedulerExamples.cs:44
  • `year7Delivered.Wait()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one). — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/message-bus/RegisterSchedulerExamples.cs:71

What to do

  • Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult().
X1 · Async correctness6.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.

  • Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process. (×2) — src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp/App.xaml.cs:62, src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp/App.xaml.cs:75
  • `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained. (×4) — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-android/AbsenceActivity.cs:37, src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-android/AbsenceNotePromptActivity.cs:19, src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-android/MainActivity.cs:38, …

What to do

  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X2 · Cancellation propagation4.7 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage. 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 question: every named async function that itself makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (global `fetch`, axios and its file-local instances, ky, ofetch) counts, and it is compliant when its parameters or body name a signal or it hands one of its own parameters to the request as options; signatures a framework fixes (JSX event handlers, route and lifecycle exports, request-first handlers, `override`, `'use server'` modules, TanStack `mutationFn`) are exempt unless they take a signal. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

  • Only 12/99 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×37) — src/ReactiveUI.Maui/RoutedViewHost.cs:193, src/ReactiveUI.Maui/RoutedViewHost.cs:239, src/ReactiveUI.Maui/RoutedViewHost.cs:276, …
  • Neither takes a CancellationToken nor reads the one of the function it sits in, while it calls something that takes one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Take the token, or pass on the enclosing one. (×2) — src/ReactiveUI/Platforms/android/BundleSuspensionDriver.cs:49, src/ReactiveUI/Platforms/android/BundleSuspensionDriver.cs:78

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
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 `ArgumentNullException` 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.

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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.

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.

Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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

Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `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.

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X3 · Exception handling7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.

  • `catch (InvalidOperationException)` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch. — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/rxappbuilder/StartupExamples.cs:95

What to do

  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded)
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X5 · Nullable reference types9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

  • ~1.2 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 208 suppression(s) across the 170295 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

  • Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.

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 Health70%StrongSolid.
Architecture99%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity62%Adequate — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness70%StrongSolid.
Security55%Adequate — gated by D36, C1Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance70%StrongSolid.
Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — 2 observation(s) recorded · Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
  • X10 Duplicated predicate — 5 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 3 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

  • C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 40 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.
  • AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
  • 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 — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — analyzer environment
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Cross-context type coupling could not be assessed — this codebase's bounded contexts are neither declared nor inferable.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
  • 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) — 307 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
  • D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the analyzer's build of the target did not succeed
  • 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: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (19 value object(s))
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (54 CQRS handler(s))
  • ED5 Idempotency — 54 mutating command handler(s)/consumer(s) detected and 126 handler method(s) walked, but no persistent write was recognised in any of them — idempotency not assessed
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected — no HttpClient/IHttpClientFactory/AddHttpClient in source, and no Refit/RestSharp/Flurl.Http namespace or package reference
  • 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
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X4 Structured logging — This check asks whether log calls keep a message's values apart from its text, which needs a logger that can carry them as fields. This repository's C# was read, and every log call in it goes through a logger that takes one finished message — its own wrapper, log4net, Console or Debug — so an interpolated message there loses nothing the API could have kept. Calls through Microsoft.Extensions.Logging, Serilog, NLog or ZLogger, or any logger with a message-template overload, would be judged.
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.

Critical — 38 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · AnalyzerSeverityNone · ×23
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:760 — IDE0011 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:807 — IDE0280 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/.editorconfig:4 — SST1449 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/.editorconfig:7 — PSH1100 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/.editorconfig:10 — PSH1410 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:37 — PSH1410 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:18 — SST1486 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:19 — SST1471 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:21 — SST1148 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:23 — SST1662 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:25 — PSH1418 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:28 — SST2202 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:29 — IDE0090 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:31 — SST1531 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:33 — SST2221 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:34 — IDE0058 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:35 — CA1806 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:40 — SST2403 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:47 — SST1600 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:48 — SST1601 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:49 — SST1663 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:52 — SST2334 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
  • AnalyzerSeverityNone src/examples/Documentation/.editorconfig:55 — XUNIT1051 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×3
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
AX3 · Project dependency cycles · Namespace dependency cycle · ×2
  • Namespace dependency cycle src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:13 — The namespaces ReactiveUI ↔ ReactiveUI.Interfaces ↔ ReactiveUI.Maui.Internal depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is ReactiveUI → ReactiveUI.Maui.Internal (ReactiveUI.RoutedViewHost → ReactiveUI.Maui.Internal.IMauiRoutedViewHost, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.
  • Namespace dependency cycle src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:11 — The namespaces ReactiveUI.Reactive ↔ ReactiveUI.Reactive.Interfaces ↔ ReactiveUI.Reactive.Maui.Internal depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is ReactiveUI.Reactive → ReactiveUI.Reactive.Maui.Internal (ReactiveUI.Reactive.RoutedViewHost → ReactiveUI.Reactive.Maui.Internal.IMauiRoutedViewHost, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.
D10 · Test Quality · Tests excluded from compilation · ×2
  • Tests excluded from compilation: src/tests/ReactiveUI.WinForms.Tests/ReactiveUIBuilderWinFormsTests.cs src/tests/ReactiveUI.WinForms.Tests/ReactiveUIBuilderWinFormsTests.cs:15 — 2 test method(s) in this file, but `ReactiveUI.WinForms.Tests.csproj` drops it from the build with `<Compile Remove="**\*.cs" />`. It never compiles, never runs, and never reports as skipped — unlike a `Skip = "..."` attribute, nothing in a green test run says these tests are gone. Restore it to the compilation, or delete the file so the tree stops implying coverage that isn't there.
  • Tests excluded from compilation: src/tests/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Tests/CommonGui/ObservableAsPropertyHelperModeTests.cs src/tests/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Tests/CommonGui/ObservableAsPropertyHelperModeTests.cs:18 — 2 test method(s) in this file, but `ReactiveUI.Wpf.Tests.csproj` drops it from the build with `<Compile Remove="**\*.cs" />`. It never compiles, never runs, and never reports as skipped — unlike a `Skip = "..."` attribute, nothing in a green test run says these tests are gone. Restore it to the compilation, or delete the file so the tree stops implying coverage that isn't there.
D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×1
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Directory.Build.targets:15 — NU5104 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
Serious — 193 finding(s)
X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken · ×37
  • Async method without CancellationToken: SyncNavigationStacksAsync src/ReactiveUI.Maui/RoutedViewHost.cs:193 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: PerformInitialNavigationSyncAsync src/ReactiveUI.Maui/RoutedViewHost.cs:239 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: OnNavigateBackAsync src/ReactiveUI.Maui/RoutedViewHost.cs:276 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: OnNavigateAsync src/ReactiveUI.Maui/RoutedViewHost.cs:336 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/ObservableMixins.cs:282 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Handle src/benchmarks/ReactiveUI.Benchmarks/InteractionBenchmarks.cs:46 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: RegisterAndHandle src/benchmarks/ReactiveUI.Benchmarks/InteractionBenchmarks.cs:57 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: BindAddButton src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/BindCommandExamples.cs:18 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: PassTheSelectedItem src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/BindCommandExamples.cs:45 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: CancelByDisposing src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CancellationExamples.cs:18 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: CancelFromAnotherCommand src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CancellationExamples.cs:41 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: ReadCombinedCommandMembersDirectly src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CombinedCommandMembersExamples.cs:19 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: InvokeFromPipeline src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandExamples.cs:90 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: CombineCommands src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandExamples.cs:106 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: LogDeskEvents src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:13 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: SyncCatalogueAsObservable src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:132 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: BorrowBookAsObservable src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:163 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: SyncCentralCatalogueTask src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs:103 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: DeriveWithResultObservable src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandTypeExamples.cs:22 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: DeriveWithCancelCallback src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandTypeExamples.cs:50 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: ExposeCommandThroughInterface src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandTypeExamples.cs:210 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: DescribeAsync src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandTypeExamples.cs:249 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: ReturnAllBooksAsync src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/LibraryDesk.cs:88 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: ReturnAllBooksWithCountAsync src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/LibraryDesk.cs:96 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: RenewLoanAsync src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/LibraryDesk.cs:105 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • + 12 more in this group — see findings.md.
D17 · Explicit Debt · CoverageExclusion · ×23
  • CoverageExclusion src/Polyfills/CallerArgumentExpressionAttribute.cs:18 — class CallerArgumentExpressionAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Polyfills/DoesNotReturnIfAttribute.cs:13 — class DoesNotReturnIfAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Polyfills/DynamicallyAccessedMembersAttribute.cs:14 — class DynamicallyAccessedMembersAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Polyfills/Index.cs:15 — struct Index — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Polyfills/IsExternalInit.cs:18 — class IsExternalInit — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Polyfills/MaybeNullWhenAttribute.cs:17 — class MaybeNullWhenAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Polyfills/MemberNotNullAttribute.cs:19 — class MemberNotNullAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Polyfills/NotNullAttribute.cs:13 — class NotNullAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Polyfills/NotNullWhenAttribute.cs:12 — class NotNullWhenAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Polyfills/Range.cs:15 — struct Range — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Polyfills/RequiresDynamicCodeAttribute.cs:16 — class RequiresDynamicCodeAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Polyfills/RequiresUnreferencedCodeAttribute.cs:18 — class RequiresUnreferencedCodeAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Polyfills/UnconditionalSuppressMessageAttribute.cs:15 — class UnconditionalSuppressMessageAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveFragment.cs:16 — class ReactiveFragment — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/ReactiveUI.Core/Mixins/PreserveAttribute.cs:15 — class PreserveAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ViewModelViewHost{TViewModel}.cs:66 — method ResolveViewForViewModel — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/ObservableMixins.cs:313 — method DisposeLinkedSource — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveProperty/ReactiveProperty.cs:573 — method OnError — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveProperty/ReactiveProperty.cs:871 — method OnError — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveProperty/ReactiveProperty.cs:578 — method OnCompleted — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveProperty/ReactiveProperty.cs:876 — method OnCompleted — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Shared/ArgumentValidation.cs:17 — class ArgumentValidation — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/benchmarks/ReactiveUI.Benchmarks/Program.cs:13 — class Program — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
D17 · Explicit Debt · DeadPreprocessorBranch · ×17
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Shared/RxSchedulers.cs:102 — #else — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ReactivePage.cs:112 — #else — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/PlatformOperations.cs:8 — #if HAS_UNO — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/PlatformOperations.cs:21 — #if HAS_UNO — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ReactivePage.cs:22 — #if HAS_UNO — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ReactivePage.cs:97 — #if HAS_UNO — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ReactivePage.cs:125 — #if HAS_UNO — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ReactiveUserControl.cs:19 — #if HAS_UNO — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ReactiveUserControl.cs:94 — #if HAS_UNO — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ReactiveUserControl.cs:109 — #if HAS_UNO — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:23 — #if HAS_UNO — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:46 — #if HAS_UNO — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ViewModelViewHost.cs:21 — #if HAS_UNO — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ViewModelViewHost.cs:45 — #if HAS_UNO — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ReactivePage.cs:92 — #if HAS_UNO && IOS — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ReactiveUserControl.cs:89 — #if HAS_UNO && IOS — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
  • DeadPreprocessorBranch src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ReactivePage.cs:187 — #if HAS_MAUI — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
D10 · Test Quality · Test cannot fail · ×10
  • Test cannot fail: WithoutViewModel_ShowsTheDefaultContent src/tests/ReactiveUI.Device.Tests/Platforms/iOS/Tests/ViewModelViewHostTests.cs:149 — This test's act runs inside `RunAsync` at src/tests/ReactiveUI.Device.Tests/Platforms/iOS/Infrastructure/MainThread.cs:50, which catches every exception and neither rethrows nor verifies — so the method passes whether or not the behaviour it names actually happens. Adding an assertion inside that region does not fix it: the assertion throws, and the same catch swallows it exactly like the exception it replaced. Assert the outcome instead of catching it: `Assert.Throws<T>(() => …)` (or the framework equivalent) when a throw is the expected result, or narrow the catch to the one exception type and assert on it. A catch-all that only logs belongs in production code, not between a test and its verdict.
  • Test cannot fail: ViewContract_IsPassedToTheLocator src/tests/ReactiveUI.Device.Tests/Platforms/iOS/Tests/ViewModelViewHostTests.cs:168 — This test's act runs inside `RunAsync` at src/tests/ReactiveUI.Device.Tests/Platforms/iOS/Infrastructure/MainThread.cs:50, which catches every exception and neither rethrows nor verifies — so the method passes whether or not the behaviour it names actually happens. Adding an assertion inside that region does not fix it: the assertion throws, and the same catch swallows it exactly like the exception it replaced. Assert the outcome instead of catching it: `Assert.Throws<T>(() => …)` (or the framework equivalent) when a throw is the expected result, or narrow the catch to the one exception type and assert on it. A catch-all that only logs belongs in production code, not between a test and its verdict.
  • Test cannot fail: HostedController_ActivatesOnScreenAndDeactivatesOffScreen src/tests/ReactiveUI.Device.Tests/Platforms/iOS/Tests/ViewModelViewHostTests.cs:192 — This test's act runs inside `RunAsync` at src/tests/ReactiveUI.Device.Tests/Platforms/iOS/Infrastructure/MainThread.cs:50, which catches every exception and neither rethrows nor verifies — so the method passes whether or not the behaviour it names actually happens. Adding an assertion inside that region does not fix it: the assertion throws, and the same catch swallows it exactly like the exception it replaced. Assert the outcome instead of catching it: `Assert.Throws<T>(() => …)` (or the framework equivalent) when a throw is the expected result, or narrow the catch to the one exception type and assert on it. A catch-all that only logs belongs in production code, not between a test and its verdict.
  • Test cannot fail: Dispose_ClearsBinding src/tests/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Tests/Wpf/ValidationBindingWpfTest.cs:349 — This test's act runs inside `catch` at line 368 of this file, which catches every exception and neither rethrows nor verifies — so the method passes whether or not the behaviour it names actually happens. Adding an assertion inside that region does not fix it: the assertion throws, and the same catch swallows it exactly like the exception it replaced. Assert the outcome instead of catching it: `Assert.Throws<T>(() => …)` (or the framework equivalent) when a throw is the expected result, or narrow the catch to the one exception type and assert on it. A catch-all that only logs belongs in production code, not between a test and its verdict.
  • Test cannot fail: BindWithValidation_CreatesBinding src/tests/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Tests/Wpf/ValidationBindingMixinsTest.cs:49 — This test's act runs inside `catch` at line 67 of this file, which catches every exception and neither rethrows nor verifies — so the method passes whether or not the behaviour it names actually happens. Adding an assertion inside that region does not fix it: the assertion throws, and the same catch swallows it exactly like the exception it replaced. Assert the outcome instead of catching it: `Assert.Throws<T>(() => …)` (or the framework equivalent) when a throw is the expected result, or narrow the catch to the one exception type and assert on it. A catch-all that only logs belongs in production code, not between a test and its verdict.
  • Test cannot fail: Changed_IsNotNull src/tests/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Tests/Wpf/ValidationBindingWpfTest.cs:377 — This test's act runs inside `catch` at line 395 of this file, which catches every exception and neither rethrows nor verifies — so the method passes whether or not the behaviour it names actually happens. The 2 assertion(s) this test does make are inside that region, and an xUnit/NUnit assertion reports by THROWING — so they are caught and discarded too, which is why nothing else here flags this test. Assert the outcome instead of catching it: `Assert.Throws<T>(() => …)` (or the framework equivalent) when a throw is the expected result, or narrow the catch to the one exception type and assert on it. A catch-all that only logs belongs in production code, not between a test and its verdict.
  • Test cannot fail: Direction_IsTwoWay src/tests/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Tests/Wpf/ValidationBindingWpfTest.cs:404 — This test's act runs inside `catch` at line 422 of this file, which catches every exception and neither rethrows nor verifies — so the method passes whether or not the behaviour it names actually happens. The 2 assertion(s) this test does make are inside that region, and an xUnit/NUnit assertion reports by THROWING — so they are caught and discarded too, which is why nothing else here flags this test. Assert the outcome instead of catching it: `Assert.Throws<T>(() => …)` (or the framework equivalent) when a throw is the expected result, or narrow the catch to the one exception type and assert on it. A catch-all that only logs belongs in production code, not between a test and its verdict.
  • Test cannot fail: Changed_EmitsWhenViewModelPropertyChanges src/tests/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Tests/Wpf/ValidationBindingWpfTest.cs:431 — This test's act runs inside `catch` at line 458 of this file, which catches every exception and neither rethrows nor verifies — so the method passes whether or not the behaviour it names actually happens. The 2 assertion(s) this test does make are inside that region, and an xUnit/NUnit assertion reports by THROWING — so they are caught and discarded too, which is why nothing else here flags this test. Assert the outcome instead of catching it: `Assert.Throws<T>(() => …)` (or the framework equivalent) when a throw is the expected result, or narrow the catch to the one exception type and assert on it. A catch-all that only logs belongs in production code, not between a test and its verdict.
  • Test cannot fail: Changed_EmitsWhenViewPropertyChanges src/tests/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Tests/Wpf/ValidationBindingWpfTest.cs:467 — This test's act runs inside `catch` at line 495 of this file, which catches every exception and neither rethrows nor verifies — so the method passes whether or not the behaviour it names actually happens. The 2 assertion(s) this test does make are inside that region, and an xUnit/NUnit assertion reports by THROWING — so they are caught and discarded too, which is why nothing else here flags this test. Assert the outcome instead of catching it: `Assert.Throws<T>(() => …)` (or the framework equivalent) when a throw is the expected result, or narrow the catch to the one exception type and assert on it. A catch-all that only logs belongs in production code, not between a test and its verdict.
  • Test cannot fail: Bind_CreatesValidBinding src/tests/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Tests/Wpf/ValidationBindingWpfTest.cs:538 — This test's act runs inside `catch` at line 559 of this file, which catches every exception and neither rethrows nor verifies — so the method passes whether or not the behaviour it names actually happens. The 2 assertion(s) this test does make are inside that region, and an xUnit/NUnit assertion reports by THROWING — so they are caught and discarded too, which is why nothing else here flags this test. Assert the outcome instead of catching it: `Assert.Throws<T>(() => …)` (or the framework equivalent) when a throw is the expected result, or narrow the catch to the one exception type and assert on it. A catch-all that only logs belongs in production code, not between a test and its verdict.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×6
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Suspension/SuspensionHost.cs:40 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Suspension/SuspensionHost.cs:40-52 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Suspension/SuspensionHost{TAppState}.cs:31-43 — 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.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Maui/RoutedViewHost.cs:156 — src/ReactiveUI.Maui/RoutedViewHost.cs:156-168 | src/ReactiveUI.Maui/RoutedViewHost{TViewModel}.cs:80-92 — 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/ReactiveUI.Maui/RoutedViewHost.cs:156` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:172 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:172-184 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:173-185 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 154 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-maui/RoutedViewHostExamples.cs:116 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-maui/RoutedViewHostExamples.cs:116-128 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-maui/RoutedViewHostExamples.cs:142-154 — 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/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-maui/RoutedViewHostExamples.cs:116` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:60 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:60-72 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:143-156 — 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/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:60` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/ComponentBaseExamples.cs:22 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/ComponentBaseExamples.cs:22-34 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/LayoutComponentBaseExamples.cs:22-34 — before extracting anything, compare `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/ComponentBaseExamples.cs` and `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/LayoutComponentBaseExamples.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 33 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/ComponentBaseExamples.cs:22` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×5
  • No assertions: ReactiveActivity_DeactivatedFiresWhenTheActivityPauses src/tests/ReactiveUI.Device.Tests/Platforms/Android/Tests/ActivationTests.cs:30 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: ReactiveAppCompatActivity_AndFragment_Activate src/tests/ReactiveUI.Device.Tests/Platforms/Android/Tests/ActivationTests.cs:72 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: AppBuilderTestAsync_HandlesTaskCompletedTask src/tests/ReactiveUI.Testing.Tests/RxTestTests.cs:177 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: Dispose_CleansUpResources src/tests/ReactiveUI.Tests/ScheduledSubjectTest.cs:34 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: NullObservablesDoNotCauseExceptions src/tests/ReactiveUI.Tests/WhenAny/WhenAnyObservableTests.cs:22 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×5
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:133 — src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:133-138 | src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:173-178 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:133` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Winforms/PanelSetMethodBindingConverter.cs:28 — src/ReactiveUI.Winforms/PanelSetMethodBindingConverter.cs:28-33 | src/ReactiveUI.Winforms/TableContentSetMethodBindingConverter.cs:28-33 — 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/ReactiveUI.Winforms/PanelSetMethodBindingConverter.cs:28` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:132 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:132-137 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:126-131 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 154 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryBackgroundExamples.cs:137 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryBackgroundExamples.cs:137-143 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:108-113 — 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/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryBackgroundExamples.cs:137` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryBackgroundExamples.cs:144` calls `Execute` and `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:115` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/SuspensionExamples.cs:44 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/SuspensionExamples.cs:44-49 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/TypedSuspensionExamples.cs:40-45 — 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/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/SuspensionExamples.cs:44` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/TypedSuspensionExamples.cs:45` calls `Subscribe`, `WriteLine` and `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/SuspensionExamples.cs:49` 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.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking · ×5
  • Sync-over-async blocking — 4 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp/App.xaml.cs:62 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp/App.xaml.cs:75 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking src/examples/Documentation/Pages/message-bus/RegisterSchedulerExamples.cs:44 — `delivered.Wait()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking src/examples/Documentation/Pages/message-bus/RegisterSchedulerExamples.cs:71 — `year7Delivered.Wait()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/MutableDependencyResolverAOTExtensions.cs:45 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/MutableDependencyResolverAOTExtensions.cs:45-56 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/MutableDependencyResolverExtensions.cs:55-66 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/MutableDependencyResolverAOTExtensions.cs:75 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/MutableDependencyResolverAOTExtensions.cs:75-86 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/MutableDependencyResolverExtensions.cs:92-103 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/CollectionPersistExamples.cs:150 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/CollectionPersistExamples.cs:150-161 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/CollectionPersistExamples.cs:279-290 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorServer/Services/FileJsonSuspensionDriver.cs:66 — src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorServer/Services/FileJsonSuspensionDriver.cs:66-77 | src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp/Services/FileJsonSuspensionDriver.cs:61-72 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/ViewModelViewHost.cs:133 — src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/ViewModelViewHost.cs:133-141 | src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ViewModelViewHost.cs:167-175 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/AutoDataTemplateBindingHook.cs:86 — src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/AutoDataTemplateBindingHook.cs:86-97 | src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/AutoDataTemplateBindingHook.cs:37-45 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/AutoDataTemplateBindingHook.cs:86 — src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/AutoDataTemplateBindingHook.cs:86-97 | src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/AutoDataTemplateBindingHook.cs:37-45 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/SwitchSubscribeExamples.cs:193 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/SwitchSubscribeExamples.cs:193-201 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/SwitchSubscribeExamples.cs:239-247 — 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/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/SwitchSubscribeExamples.cs:193` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:427 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:427-434 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:449-456 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 154 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:427` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:486 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:486-493 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:496-503 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 154 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:486` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:547 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:547-554 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:546-553 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 154 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:547` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Winforms/RoutedViewHost.cs:137 — src/ReactiveUI.Winforms/RoutedViewHost.cs:137-144 | src/ReactiveUI.Winforms/ViewModelViewHost.cs:175-182 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:152 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:152-156 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:150-154 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 154 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reactive-property/IReactivePropertyExamples.cs:22 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reactive-property/IReactivePropertyExamples.cs:22-26 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reactive-property/ObservableValidationExamples.cs:77-81 — 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.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:204 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:204-208 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:213-217 — 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 (5 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reactive-property/ObservableValidationExamples.cs:42 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reactive-property/ObservableValidationExamples.cs:42-46 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reactive-property/ObservableValidationExamples.cs:48-53 — 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/examples/Documentation/Pages/reactive-property/ObservableValidationExamples.cs:48` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
X1 · Async correctness · async void method · ×4
  • async void method: OnCreate src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-android/AbsenceActivity.cs:37 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.
  • async void method: OnCreate src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-android/AbsenceNotePromptActivity.cs:19 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.
  • async void method: OnCreate src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-android/MainActivity.cs:38 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.
  • async void method: OnCreate src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-android/WeekdayPagerActivity.cs:27 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI/Platforms/android/ControlFetcherMixins.cs:172 — src/ReactiveUI/Platforms/android/ControlFetcherMixins.cs:172-189 | src/ReactiveUI/Platforms/android/ControlFetcherMixins.cs:311-328 — 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/ReactiveUI/Platforms/android/ControlFetcherMixins.cs:172` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:337 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:337-354 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:353-370 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 154 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/CollectionPersistExamples.cs:221 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/CollectionPersistExamples.cs:221-238 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/CollectionPersistExamples.cs:286-303 — 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/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/CollectionPersistExamples.cs:221` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveAppCompatActivity.cs:22 — src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveAppCompatActivity.cs:22-35 | src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveFragmentActivity.cs:21-34 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveAppCompatActivity.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveFragmentActivity.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 84% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:201 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:201-214 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:205-218 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 154 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs:140 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs:140-153 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs:192-205 — 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/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs:140` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Suspension/SuspensionHostExtensions.cs:164 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Suspension/SuspensionHostExtensions.cs:164-173 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Suspension/SuspensionHostExtensions.cs:259-268 — 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/ReactiveUI.Shared/Suspension/SuspensionHostExtensions.cs:164` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reflection/AutoPersistReflectionExamples.cs:189 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reflection/AutoPersistReflectionExamples.cs:189-198 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reflection/AutoPersistReflectionExamples.cs:242-251 — 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/examples/Documentation/Pages/reflection/AutoPersistReflectionExamples.cs:189` 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.
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-maui/VisibilityConverterExamples.cs:62 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-maui/VisibilityConverterExamples.cs:62-71 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-winui/VisibilityConverterExamples.cs:46-55 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI/Platforms/android/UsbManagerExtensions.cs:67 — src/ReactiveUI/Platforms/android/UsbManagerExtensions.cs:67-73 | src/ReactiveUI/Platforms/android/UsbManagerExtensions.cs:93-99 — 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/ReactiveUI/Platforms/android/UsbManagerExtensions.cs:67` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/SuspensionExamples.cs:53 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/SuspensionExamples.cs:53-59 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/TypedSuspensionExamples.cs:49-55 — 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/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/SuspensionExamples.cs:53` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/TypedSuspensionExamples.cs:56` calls `OnNext` and `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/SuspensionExamples.cs:60` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/IndexExamples.cs:24 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/IndexExamples.cs:24-30 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/scheduling/RxSchedulerExamples.cs:89-95 — 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.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×2
  • TooManyMethods: ReactiveCommand src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveCommand/ReactiveCommand.cs — TooManyMethods — 486 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 82 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 52 over it, 2.73× the bar. The type holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group its members by. To reduce it, split it by area instead: give each cohesive family of members its own smaller type, so no one type has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • TooManyMethods: ReactiveUIBuilder src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.cs — TooManyMethods — 451 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 59 methods, declared across 2 files: Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.cs (41), Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs (18). The bar is 30 methods; this is 29 over it, 1.97× 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Suspension/SuspensionHostExtensions.cs:137 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Suspension/SuspensionHostExtensions.cs:137-162 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Suspension/SuspensionHostExtensions.cs:232-257 — 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/ReactiveUI.Shared/Suspension/SuspensionHostExtensions.cs:137` 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 (26 lines × 2) src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Winforms/LoginViewModel.cs:21 — src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Winforms/LoginViewModel.cs:21-46 | src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Wpf/LoginViewModel.cs:21-46 — `src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Winforms/LoginViewModel.cs` and `src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Wpf/LoginViewModel.cs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 2 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 50 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:376 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:376-394 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:395-413 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 154 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-winui/ViewContractExamples.cs:33 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-winui/ViewContractExamples.cs:33-51 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-winui/ViewContractExamples.cs:64-82 — 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/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-winui/ViewContractExamples.cs:33` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:232 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:232-246 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:239-253 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 154 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/UseDescriptiveVariablesWithWhenAnyExamples.cs:14 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/UseDescriptiveVariablesWithWhenAnyExamples.cs:14-28 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/UseDescriptiveVariablesWithWhenAnyExamples.cs:33-47 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:85 — src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:85-95 | src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ViewModelViewHost.cs:86-95 — 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.
  • Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/BindCommandExamples.cs:19 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/BindCommandExamples.cs:19-29 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/guidelines/CommandsExamples.cs:32-41 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/BindCommandExamples.cs:19` 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 (5 lines × 4) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveCommand/CombinedReactiveCommand.cs:240 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveCommand/CombinedReactiveCommand.cs:240-244 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveCommand/CombinedReactiveCommand.cs:420-424 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveCommand/CombinedReactiveCommand.cs:619-623 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveProperty/ReactiveProperty.cs:649-653 — there are 4 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveCommand/CombinedReactiveCommand.cs:240 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveCommand/CombinedReactiveCommand.cs:240-244 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveCommand/CombinedReactiveCommand.cs:420-424 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveCommand/CombinedReactiveCommand.cs:619-623 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveProperty/ReactiveProperty.cs:649-653 — there are 4 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/SwitchSubscribeExamples.cs:146 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/SwitchSubscribeExamples.cs:146-156 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/SwitchSubscribeExamples.cs:216-226 — 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/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/SwitchSubscribeExamples.cs:146` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reflection/MusicPlayerCodeBehind.cs:29 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reflection/MusicPlayerCodeBehind.cs:29-39 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reflection/MusicPlayerScreen.cs:32-62 — 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 both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/reflection/MusicPlayerScreen.cs:32` 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 (8 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/ComponentBaseExamples.cs:22 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/ComponentBaseExamples.cs:22-29 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/LayoutComponentBaseExamples.cs:22-29 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/OwningComponentBaseExamples.cs:22-29 — before extracting anything, compare `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/ComponentBaseExamples.cs` and `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/LayoutComponentBaseExamples.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 33 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/OwningComponentBaseExamples.cs:31` calls `Dispose` and `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/ComponentBaseExamples.cs:34` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:84 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:84-91 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs:142-149 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs:194-201 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. 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.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×2
  • Off the main sequence: ReactiveUI(net8.0) src/ReactiveUI/ReactiveUI.csproj:1 — ReactiveUI(net8.0): abstractness 0.11, instability 0.07, distance 0.82 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 10 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: ReactiveUI.Reactive(net8.0) src/ReactiveUI.Reactive/ReactiveUI.Reactive.csproj:1 — ReactiveUI.Reactive(net8.0): abstractness 0.11, instability 0.07, distance 0.81 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 9 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×2
  • Low cohesion: LibraryForm (LCOM4 5) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-winforms/LibraryForm.cs:16 — LibraryForm's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: ViewModelControlHost (LCOM4 4) src/ReactiveUI.Winforms/ViewModelViewHost.cs:31 — ViewModelControlHost's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
X1 · Async correctness · Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) · ×2
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp/App.xaml.cs:62 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp/App.xaml.cs:75 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async local function without CancellationToken · ×2
  • Async local function without CancellationToken: DeserializeAsync src/ReactiveUI/Platforms/android/BundleSuspensionDriver.cs:49 — Neither takes a CancellationToken nor reads the one of the function it sits in, while it calls something that takes one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Take the token, or pass on the enclosing one.
  • Async local function without CancellationToken: DeserializeAsync src/ReactiveUI/Platforms/android/BundleSuspensionDriver.cs:78 — Neither takes a CancellationToken nor reads the one of the function it sits in, while it calls something that takes one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Take the token, or pass on the enclosing one.
C1 · Data Protection · No data-protection/encryption · ×1
  • No data-protection/encryption — No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · Ambiguous naming convention for time advancement. 'AdvanceTo' typically implies setting an absolute time position, while 'AdvanceBy' implies adding a duration. However, without documentation, the distinction is subtle and prone to misuse if the user confuses absolute vs relative semantics. In many Rx testing libraries, these are distinct, but the naming here is slightly inconsistent with common conventions where 'AdvanceTo' is absolute and 'AdvanceBy' is relative, yet both take 'milliseconds' which could be interpreted either way depending on the scheduler's current state. · ×1
  • Ambiguous naming convention for time advancement. 'AdvanceTo' typically implies setting an absolute time position, while 'AdvanceBy' implies adding a duration. However, without documentation, the distinction is subtle and prone to misuse if the user confuses absolute vs relative semantics. In many Rx testing libraries, these are distinct, but the naming here is slightly inconsistent with common conventions where 'AdvanceTo' is absolute and 'AdvanceBy' is relative, yet both take 'milliseconds' which could be interpreted either way depending on the scheduler's current state. — Ensure documentation clearly distinguishes that 'AdvanceToMs' sets the virtual clock to the specified absolute time, while 'AdvanceByMs' increments the virtual clock by the specified duration. Consider renaming to 'SetTimeToMs' and 'AddTimeMs' for absolute clarity, or keep current names but enforce strict semantic usage. (signatures: void TestSchedulerExtensions.extension(TestScheduler).AdvanceToMs(double milliseconds) | void TestSchedulerExtensions.extension(TestScheduler).AdvanceByMs(double milliseconds))
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1
  • Change coupling: ReactiveComponentBase.cs ↔ ReactiveLayoutComponentBase.cs src/ReactiveUI.Blazor/ReactiveComponentBase.cs:1 — `src/ReactiveUI.Blazor/ReactiveComponentBase.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Blazor/ReactiveLayoutComponentBase.cs` change together 91% of the time (10 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 10 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `223b9287` Fix Blazor activation render ordering and update dependencies (#4318); `219b20f4` Refactor WhenAnyValue usage to generic overloads (#4097); `8729191f` Fix Blazor ViewModelActivation (#3871) — run `git show` on any of them.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (20 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (20 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:171 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:171-185 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:200-215 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:231-247 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:264-281 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:299-317 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:336-355 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:375-395 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:416-437 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:474-496 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:534-557 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:172-186 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:204-219 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:238-254 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:274-291 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:312-330 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:352-371 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:394-414 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:438-459 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:484-506 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:533-556 — These 20 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 20 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 20 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13–17 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13–17 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/ViewModelViewHost.cs:35 — src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/ViewModelViewHost.cs:35-47 | src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ViewModelViewHost.cs:48-64 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/ViewModelViewHost.cs:35` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:300 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:300-316 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:313-329 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 154 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–16 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12–16 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:34 — src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:34-45 | src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:50-65 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/RoutedViewHost.cs:34` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:265 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:265-280 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:275-290 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 154 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 20) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 20) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:174 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:174-180 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:203-209 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:234-240 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:267-273 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:302-308 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:339-345 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:378-384 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:419-425 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:477-483 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:537-543 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:175-181 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:207-213 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:241-247 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:277-283 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:315-321 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:355-361 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:397-403 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:441-447 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:487-493 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs:536-542 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/BuilderMixins.Instance.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 154 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs:174` 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 (74 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (74 lines × 3) src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveDialogFragment.cs:33 — src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveDialogFragment.cs:33-108 | src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveFragment.cs:35-108 | src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactivePreferenceFragment.cs:38-121 — 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (96 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (96 lines × 2) src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveAppCompatActivity.cs:39 — src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveAppCompatActivity.cs:39-158 | src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveFragmentActivity.cs:40-135 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveAppCompatActivity.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveFragmentActivity.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 84% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveFragmentActivity.cs:40` 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 (63 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (63 lines × 3) src/ReactiveUI.Blazor/ReactiveComponentBase.cs:52 — src/ReactiveUI.Blazor/ReactiveComponentBase.cs:52-114 | src/ReactiveUI.Blazor/ReactiveInjectableComponentBase.cs:53-115 | src/ReactiveUI.Blazor/ReactiveLayoutComponentBase.cs:52-114 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.Blazor/ReactiveComponentBase.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Blazor/ReactiveInjectableComponentBase.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 92% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ReactiveUI.Blazor/ReactiveComponentBase.cs:52` 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 (24 lines × 11) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (24 lines × 11) src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveCarouselView.cs:37 — src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveCarouselView.cs:37-60 | src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveContentPage.cs:37-60 | src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveContentView.cs:37-60 | src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveFlyoutPage.cs:37-60 | src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveMasterDetailPage.cs:37-60 | src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveMultiPage.cs:41-64 | src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveNavigationPage.cs:36-59 | src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveShell.cs:36-59 | src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveTabbedPage.cs:37-60 | src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveTitleBar.cs:37-60 | src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveWindow.cs:37-60 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveFlyoutPage.cs` and `src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveMasterDetailPage.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 84% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveCarouselView.cs:37` 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 (18 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 3) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveCommand/CombinedReactiveCommand.cs:316 — src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveCommand/CombinedReactiveCommand.cs:316-333 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveCommand/CombinedReactiveCommand.cs:486-503 | src/ReactiveUI.Shared/ReactiveProperty/ReactiveProperty.cs:759-776 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (24 shared lines) · ×1
  • Near-duplicate member pair (24 shared lines) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/SuspensionExamples.cs:26 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/SuspensionExamples.cs:26-70 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/TypedSuspensionExamples.cs:18-71 — These two members are variants of one another: 24 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Edited copy of a member (16 corresponding lines) · ×1
  • Edited copy of a member (16 corresponding lines) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs:135 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs:135-153 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs:187-205 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 16 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (24 lines × 3) src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Maui/LoginViewModel.cs:30 — src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Maui/LoginViewModel.cs:30-53 | src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Winforms/LoginViewModel.cs:29-52 | src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Wpf/LoginViewModel.cs:29-52 — `src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Maui/LoginViewModel.cs` and `src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Winforms/LoginViewModel.cs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 1 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 24 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Maui/LoginViewModel.cs:30` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20–22 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (20–22 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:171 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:171-192 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs:216-235 — 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/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:171` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (20 lines × 3) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/CollectionPersistExamples.cs:115 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/CollectionPersistExamples.cs:115-136 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/CollectionPersistExamples.cs:182-201 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/CollectionPersistExamples.cs:311-330 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/CollectionPersistExamples.cs:115` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/ComponentBaseExamples.cs:43 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/ComponentBaseExamples.cs:43-54 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/InjectableComponentBaseExamples.cs:44-55 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/LayoutComponentBaseExamples.cs:43-54 — before extracting anything, compare `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/ComponentBaseExamples.cs` and `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/LayoutComponentBaseExamples.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 33 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/platform-blazor/ComponentBaseExamples.cs:43` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/SuspensionExamples.cs:28 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/SuspensionExamples.cs:28-39 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/TypedSuspensionExamples.cs:22-32 — 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 (6 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:60 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:60-65 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:142-149 | src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryTaskExamples.cs:110-115 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/CommandFactoryExamples.cs:142` 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 (11 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/FileGameSaveDriver.cs:18 — src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/FileGameSaveDriver.cs:18-28 | src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorServer/Services/FileJsonSuspensionDriver.cs:31-41 | src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp/Services/FileJsonSuspensionDriver.cs:28-38 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
P12 · CI test-gate honesty · Coverage collected but not gated · ×1
  • Coverage collected but not gated — CI collects a coverage report but no step enforces a minimum — coverage could halve and CI stays green. Add a step that fails the build when coverage drops below a floor (your coverage tool's minimum-threshold flag, or a coverage-gate action) so the number guards something. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: this repository's CI files AND its coverage configuration — the well-known coverage and test-runner config files, read at the repository root and inside workspace package directories two levels down, so a floor declared beside the tests rather than in the pipeline is credited — matched against the threshold settings this check knows by name. A floor set in your coverage service's web UI rather than in a committed file, or under a setting whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×1
  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/examples/Documentation/Pages/rxappbuilder/StartupExamples.cs:95 — `catch (InvalidOperationException)` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch.
Minor — 20 finding(s)
X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×5
  • Duplicated predicate src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Maui/LoginViewModel.cs:25 — `!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(user) && !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(pass)` appears character-identically in 3 files — src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Maui/LoginViewModel.cs, src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Winforms/LoginViewModel.cs, src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Wpf/LoginViewModel.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/ReactiveUI.Maui/AutoSuspendHelper.cs:113 — `Interlocked.Exchange(ref _disposedValue, 1) != 0 || !disposing` appears character-identically in 4 files — src/ReactiveUI.Maui/AutoSuspendHelper.cs, src/ReactiveUI.Testing/TestSequencer.cs, src/ReactiveUI/Platforms/android/AutoSuspendHelper.cs, src/tests/ReactiveUI.Test.Utilities/Sequencing/TestSequencer.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/ViewModelViewHost.cs:135 — `viewInstance is not null || viewModel is null` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/ViewModelViewHost.cs, src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/Common/ViewModelViewHost.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ViewModelViewHost{TViewModel}.cs:85 — `viewInstance is null && !ContractFallbackByPass` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Common/ViewModelViewHost{TViewModel}.cs, src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ViewModelViewHost{TViewModel}.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/ReactiveUI.Winforms/PanelSetMethodBindingConverter.cs:29 — `x.IsGenericType && x.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == typeof(IEnumerable<>) && x.GetGenericArguments()[0].IsSubclassOf(typeof(Control))` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/ReactiveUI.Winforms/PanelSetMethodBindingConverter.cs, src/ReactiveUI.Winforms/TableContentSetMethodBindingConverter.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×3
  • README/code drift README.md:37 — README.md installs the package `ReactiveUI.WPF` (`dotnet add package ReactiveUI.WPF`), but no project or props file references it. 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 README.md:173 — README.md names the project `ReactiveUI.Routing`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. 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 README.md:193 — README.md names the project `ReactiveUI.Avalonia`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. 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.
AX6 · Interface segregation · Fat interface · ×1
  • Fat interface: IReactiveUIBuilder (53 members) src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/IReactiveUIBuilder.cs:45 — `IReactiveUIBuilder` declares 53 members: `WithMessageBus`, `WithMessageBus`, `WithMessageBus`, `ConfigureSuspensionDriver`, `ConfigureViewLocator`, `ForCustomPlatform`, `ForPlatforms`, `RegisterSingletonView`, `RegisterSingletonViewModel`, `RegisterView`, `RegisterViewModel`, `RegisterConstantViewModel`, `WithMainThreadScheduler`, `WithMainThreadScheduler`, `WithPlatformModule`, `WithPlatformServices`, `WithRegistration`, `WithRegistrationOnBuild`, `WithTaskPoolScheduler`, `WithTaskPoolScheduler`, `WithExceptionHandler`, `WithSuspensionHost`, `WithSuspensionHost`, `WithCacheSizes`, `WithConverter`, `WithConverter`, `WithConverter`, `WithConverter`, `WithFallbackConverter`, `WithFallbackConverter`, `WithSetMethodConverter`, `WithSetMethodConverter`, `WithConvertersFrom`, `WithViewsFromAssembly`, `UsingSplatModule`, `Build`, `BuildApp`, `WithInstance`, `WithInstance`, `WithInstance`, and 13 more. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. Those 53 declarations carry 28 distinct name(s), so part of the width is overloading rather than separate responsibilities — but 28 operations clears the >15 bar on its own, so the row is about responsibilities, not signatures. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces.
C3 · Audit Trail · Partial audit-trail evidence · ×1
  • Partial audit-trail evidence — An audit mechanism is present, but the trail is not yet complete — missing: a write-side hook (the one code path every change to the sensitive data flows through, recording who changed what), [Audited] per-entity coverage.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 19 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/ReactiveUI.Wpf.Shared/TransitioningContentControl.cs, src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Activation/ViewForMixins.cs, src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Suspension/SuspensionHostExtensions.cs, src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Builder/ReactiveUIBuilder.Build.cs, src/ReactiveUI.Maui/Internal/MauiReactiveHelpers.cs, src/ReactiveUI.Shared/Mixins/ObservableMixins.cs, src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ViewModelViewHost.cs, src/ReactiveUI/Platforms/android/ContextExtensions.cs (+11 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • REDACTED
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.
P12 · CI test-gate honesty · Sleep-based test synchronization · ×1
  • Sleep-based test synchronization — 28 Task.Delay/Thread.Sleep call(s) in test code synchronize with background work by sleeping — a known flakiness precursor on slow runners. Prefer polling with a deadline or completion signals.
P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1
  • No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
X2 · Cancellation propagation · Not all async methods take a CancellationToken · ×1
  • Not all async methods take a CancellationToken — Only 12/99 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
X5 · Nullable reference types · Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score · ×1
  • Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score — ~1.2 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 208 suppression(s) across the 170295 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.
Minor — 55 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×55
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.AndroidX(net10.0-android36.0) src/ReactiveUI.AndroidX/ReactiveUI.AndroidX.csproj — ReactiveUI.AndroidX(net10.0-android36.0): 100 % XML-doc coverage (116/116).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.Blazor(net8.0) src/ReactiveUI.Blazor/ReactiveUI.Blazor.csproj — ReactiveUI.Blazor(net8.0): 100 % XML-doc coverage (40/40).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.Blend(net462) src/ReactiveUI.Blend/ReactiveUI.Blend.csproj — ReactiveUI.Blend(net462): 100 % XML-doc coverage (63/63).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.Core(net8.0) src/ReactiveUI.Core/ReactiveUI.Core.csproj — ReactiveUI.Core(net8.0): 100 % XML-doc coverage (114/114).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.Drawing(net8.0) src/ReactiveUI.Drawing/ReactiveUI.Drawing.csproj — ReactiveUI.Drawing(net8.0): 100 % XML-doc coverage (4/4).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.Maui(net10.0-windows10.0.19041.0) src/ReactiveUI.Maui/ReactiveUI.Maui.csproj — ReactiveUI.Maui(net10.0-windows10.0.19041.0): 100 % XML-doc coverage (133/133).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.Winforms(net462) src/ReactiveUI.Winforms/ReactiveUI.Winforms.csproj — ReactiveUI.Winforms(net462): 100 % XML-doc coverage (111/111).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.WinUI(net8.0-windows10.0.19041.0) src/ReactiveUI.WinUI/ReactiveUI.WinUI.csproj — ReactiveUI.WinUI(net8.0-windows10.0.19041.0): 100 % XML-doc coverage (92/92).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.Wpf(net462) src/ReactiveUI.Wpf/ReactiveUI.Wpf.csproj — ReactiveUI.Wpf(net462): 100 % XML-doc coverage (154/154).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI(net8.0) src/ReactiveUI/ReactiveUI.csproj — ReactiveUI(net8.0): 100 % XML-doc coverage (631/631).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.Benchmarks.Reactive(net8.0) src/benchmarks/ReactiveUI.Benchmarks.Reactive/ReactiveUI.Benchmarks.Reactive.csproj — ReactiveUI.Benchmarks.Reactive(net8.0): 100 % XML-doc coverage (113/113).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.Benchmarks(net8.0) src/benchmarks/ReactiveUI.Benchmarks/ReactiveUI.Benchmarks.csproj — ReactiveUI.Benchmarks(net8.0): 100 % XML-doc coverage (113/113).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorServer src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorServer/ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorServer.csproj — ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorServer: 100 % XML-doc coverage (75/75).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorWasm src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorWasm/ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorWasm.csproj — ReactiveUI.Builder.BlazorWasm: 100 % XML-doc coverage (4/4).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp(net462) src/examples/ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp/ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp.csproj — ReactiveUI.Builder.WpfApp(net462): 100 % XML-doc coverage (107/107).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.Samples.Maui src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Maui/ReactiveUI.Samples.Maui.csproj — ReactiveUI.Samples.Maui: 100 % XML-doc coverage (25/25).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.Samples.Winforms src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Winforms/ReactiveUI.Samples.Winforms.csproj — ReactiveUI.Samples.Winforms: 100 % XML-doc coverage (12/12).
  • XML-doc coverage: ReactiveUI.Samples.Wpf src/examples/ReactiveUI.Samples.Wpf/ReactiveUI.Samples.Wpf.csproj — ReactiveUI.Samples.Wpf: 100 % XML-doc coverage (12/12).
  • XML-doc coverage: collections src/examples/Documentation/Pages/collections/collections.csproj — collections: 100 % XML-doc coverage (121/121).
  • XML-doc coverage: commands src/examples/Documentation/Pages/commands/commands.csproj — commands: 100 % XML-doc coverage (193/193).
  • XML-doc coverage: data-binding src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-binding/data-binding.csproj — data-binding: 100 % XML-doc coverage (94/94).
  • XML-doc coverage: data-persistence src/examples/Documentation/Pages/data-persistence/data-persistence.csproj — data-persistence: 100 % XML-doc coverage (130/130).
  • XML-doc coverage: default-exception-handler src/examples/Documentation/Pages/default-exception-handler/default-exception-handler.csproj — default-exception-handler: 100 % XML-doc coverage (110/110).
  • XML-doc coverage: interactions src/examples/Documentation/Pages/interactions/interactions.csproj — interactions: 100 % XML-doc coverage (94/94).
  • XML-doc coverage: message-bus src/examples/Documentation/Pages/message-bus/message-bus.csproj — message-bus: 100 % XML-doc coverage (107/107).
  • + 30 more in this group — see findings.md.

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-46de05f9949642d780ee07d242916c7d/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .11artifacts/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-46de05f9949642d780ee07d242916c7d/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 .9artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesnuget—nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan0—
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. semgrep could not parse 307 file(s) — `src/Polyfills/CallerArgumentExpressionAttribute.cs`, `src/Polyfills/DoesNotReturnIfAttribute.cs`, `src/Polyfills/DynamicallyAccessedMemberTypes.cs`, `src/Polyfills/DynamicallyAccessedMembersAttribute.cs`, `src/Polyfills/IsExternalInit.cs`, … (+302 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.0—
D40 · Network Egress 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 01a16817-e9e6-7121-9388-156ee3e27224 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 2 field(s) across 1 category, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by NAME, from the C# syntax tree, with a deliberately specific identifier classifier — the same one the C1–C5 compliance cards use to decide whether personal data is present, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip. Two caveats stated rather than glossed: those cards additionally require corroboration (a persistence/account signal, or two distinct PII categories) that this inventory deliberately does not, so it lists more than they gate on; and D32 Data Compliance shares nothing with it — that dimension is a separate semgrep ruleset for personal data leaking into logs, URLs and browser storage, and a clean D32 result says nothing about this list. Informational — it feeds no score.

Name — 2 field(s)
  • Repository.FullName src/examples/Documentation/Common/GitHub/Repository.cs:13
  • RepositoryDetailsViewModel.FullName src/examples/Documentation/Pages/getting-started/RepositoryDetailsViewModel.cs:28

Issues: 38 · Warnings: 193 · Recommendations: 20 · Info: 55 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 23-10-2026 @ 09:29 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