Public report of reactiveui/refit, 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 reportMeasured 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, 08:37 UTC · Survey ID cd_8499980dde9b4d3a8b1d21d50373fd49
reactiveui/refit
Measured 23 October 2026, 08:23 UTC, at code version 92ae878
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 scoreAdequate
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.
A medium codebase: 57,664 lines of product code in 189 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 1.0 person-years · Weakest lens: Security and Compliance, 48
Findings by how serious they are
35 critical170 serious95 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, 08:23 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 ▸
73of 77 dimensions measured by tools. The other 4 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
281of 300 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 19 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
77dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 57,664 lines of product code in 189 projects.
reactiveui/refit scores 58 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while four of its six lenses score higher still: Architecture at 98, rated Exemplary, Production Readiness at 79 and Performance at 73, both rated Strong, and Code Health at 67, rated Adequate.
The score is lower than those four because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Security and Compliance, which scores 48 and is rated Weak. Its Data Protection dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Security and Compliance can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality and to encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault, and if Security and Compliance rose to 70, the score would rise from 58 to about 65.
35 findings are critical: 24 in Explicit Debt, ten in Static Analysis (SAST) and one in Secrets (history).
Watchdog couldn't measure Test Reliability, Dependency Hygiene and IL Efficiency in this code, so those dimensions are left out of the score. The product code is 57,664 lines, which would take an estimated 1.0 person-years, around €140,000, to rebuild.
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 forThe 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.
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: 171 findings
These 171 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026, and are gone from this one. The first 100 are listed here.
God Classes · TooManyMethods: Parser src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/Parser.Request.Parameters.cs
God Classes · TooManyMethods: Emitter src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/Emitter.Inline.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ReadContentCappedAsync src/Refit/ApiException.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RefitStreamingAsync src/benchmarks/Refit.Benchmarks/StreamingBenchmark.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RefitStreamingAsync src/benchmarks/Refit.Benchmarks/StreamingProfiledBenchmarks.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowCustomDeserializationDiscrepancyAsync src/examples/Documentation/Errors/Errors.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/Testing.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowClientAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/Testing.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowCapturedEncodingAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/Testing.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowRoutesAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/Testing.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SendOtherMethodsAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/Testing.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowMatchersAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/Testing.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowDuplicateQueryAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/Testing.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowRepliesAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/Testing.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowReplyPropertiesAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/Testing.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowVerificationAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/Testing.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowAdditionalRouteAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/Testing.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowOneShotRaceAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/Testing.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowFaultsAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/Testing.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowResponseStubsAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/Testing.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/TestingStreaming.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowEarlyItemsAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/TestingStreaming.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowDisconnectAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/TestingStreaming.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowFixedStreamsAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/TestingStreaming.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowUploadAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/TestingStreaming.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowBoundedCaptureAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/TestingStreaming.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowSimulatedDelayAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/TestingStreaming.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowVerificationTimeoutAsync src/examples/Documentation/Testing/TestingStreaming.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Clients/Clients.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckNamingWithContextAsync src/examples/Documentation/Clients/Clients.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckNamingSettingsAsync src/examples/Documentation/Clients/Clients.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckOwnedClientAsync src/examples/Documentation/Clients/Clients.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckContextClientsAsync src/examples/Documentation/Clients/Clients.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckFactoryClientsAsync src/examples/Documentation/Clients/Clients.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckEmptyAuthorizationAsync src/examples/Documentation/Clients/Clients.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckAuthorizationAsync src/examples/Documentation/Clients/Clients.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Clients/SettingsPolicies.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckBufferingAsync src/examples/Documentation/Clients/SettingsPolicies.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckUnmatchedAsync src/examples/Documentation/Clients/SettingsPolicies.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/GettingStarted/GettingStarted.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/ReturnTypes/ReturnTypes.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Routes/Routes.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Queries/Converters.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Queries/Formatters.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Queries/Queries.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckSerializerNamesAsync src/examples/Documentation/Queries/Queries.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Queries/QueryOptions.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckStringObjectsAsync src/examples/Documentation/Queries/QueryOptions.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckCollectionsAsync src/examples/Documentation/Queries/QueryOptions.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Headers/Headers.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckHeaderValidationAsync src/examples/Documentation/Headers/Headers.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Headers/RequestContext.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Bodies/Bodies.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckGzipAsync src/examples/Documentation/Bodies/Bodies.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Bodies/BodyPolicies.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckModesAsync src/examples/Documentation/Bodies/BodyPolicies.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckCompressionAsync src/examples/Documentation/Bodies/BodyPolicies.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckCompressedAsync src/examples/Documentation/Bodies/BodyPolicies.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckResolutionAsync src/examples/Documentation/Bodies/BodyPolicies.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CheckTimeoutAsync src/examples/Documentation/Bodies/BodyPolicies.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Bodies/JsonLinesUploadSample.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: UploadAListYouAlreadyHaveAsync src/examples/Documentation/Bodies/JsonLinesUploadSample.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: UploadABaseTypeWithItsDiscriminatorAsync src/examples/Documentation/Bodies/JsonLinesUploadSample.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SendAKnownContentLengthAsync src/examples/Documentation/Bodies/JsonLinesUploadSample.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Rationale/Rationale.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Aot/Aot.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/JsonContexts/ContextClientSample.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShowRejectedOrderAsync src/examples/Documentation/JsonContexts/ContextClientSample.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/JsonContexts/ExistingSettingsSample.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: KeepNamingAndConvertersAsync src/examples/Documentation/JsonContexts/ExistingSettingsSample.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: UseJsonContextAsync src/examples/Documentation/JsonContexts/ExistingSettingsSample.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/JsonContexts/JsonContextSample.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/JsonContexts/JsonDefaultsSample.cs
Rebuild cost: about €140,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€47,000 to €240,000, for 791 to 2,518 hours of work, about 1.0 person-years for 1 to 2 engineers
Difficulty of the problem
Standard, 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 58. 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.
Size
Medium: 57,664 lines of product code, of which 40% is declarations and boilerplate, 21% straight logic and 39% logic with branches
Comment lines
The estimate prices 42,953 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 57,664 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
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 4 points · Low effort · ADR Quality
2
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 8 points · Medium effort · Data Protection
3
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.
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 €140,000 to build again, about 1.0 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Security and Compliance, at 48 (Weak). 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
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 4 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 ADR Quality findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort
Architecture — 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.
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.
18 modules, with 8 dependencies between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.
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.
Refit.Reflection.Benchmarks uses Refit, so a change to Refit can break Refit.Reflection.Benchmarks, while a change to Refit.Reflection.Benchmarks can't break Refit.
Position
Below the diagonal: Refit.Reflection.Benchmarks uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Refit.Analyzers uses Refit.Generator, so a change to Refit.Generator can break Refit.Analyzers, while a change to Refit.Analyzers can't break Refit.Generator.
Position
Below the diagonal: Refit.Analyzers uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Refit.Generator.Benchmarks uses Refit.Generator, so a change to Refit.Generator can break Refit.Generator.Benchmarks, while a change to Refit.Generator.Benchmarks can't break Refit.Generator.
Position
Below the diagonal: Refit.Generator.Benchmarks uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A05:2025 — Injection
10
High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures
3
Medium
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures
2
High / Critical
Roadmap
First, encrypt sensitive data at rest and manage keys securely, or confirm if infrastructure handles this. Second, harden the web security posture by adding essential response headers like Content-Security-Policy. Third, address the lack of Architecture Decision Records by documenting significant design choices in a dedicated folder. Finally, resolve the missing Software Bill of Materials to ensure supply chain provenance.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
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.).
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy first, then Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options and a frame policy) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
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.
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 — 35
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 — 170
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 — 95
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. 73 of 77 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 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 — 77 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 281 of 300 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
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/Refit.NativeAotSmoke/Refit.NativeAotSmoke.csproj' with message: Ahead-of-time compilation is not supported for the target framework.
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.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
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 (57,664 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/BodyContentEmission.cs`, `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/Emitter.cs`, `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/FormFieldEmission.cs`, `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/InlineRequestEmission.cs`, `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/IsExternalInit.cs`, … (+88 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.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
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. 141 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 181.
Package restore incomplete — third-party types were unresolved in part of the solution — NuGet restore did not complete for src/examples/Documentation/Pages/index/index.csproj, src/examples/Documentation/Pages/advanced-index/advanced-index.csproj, src/examples/Documentation/Pages/advanced-method-metadata/advanced-method-metadata.csproj, src/examples/Documentation/Pages/advanced-query-builder/advanced-query-builder.csproj, src/examples/Documentation/Pages/advanced-request-helpers/advanced-request-helpers.csproj and 78 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 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
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.
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.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, 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.
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.
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15. A further 1 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being LiteralEmissionHelpers.AppendEscapedCharacter at 17 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/LiteralEmissionHelpers.cs (LiteralEmissionHelpers.AppendEscapedCharacter at 17). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.
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.
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes9.2 / 10Stronggated by 11 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.
Resolve the 7 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with RequestBuilderImplementation.cs, GeneratedRequestRunner.cs, RestMethodInfoInternal.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with InlineRequestEmission.cs, QueryObjectEmission.cs, RequestExecutionHelpers.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with RequestParameterParsing.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
17 duplicated block group(s) detected. 4 of the 17 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.
+ 8 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with ReflectionArgumentEmission.cs, Parser.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with QueryObjectEmission.cs, QueryDictionaryEmission.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with QueryParameterEmission.cs, Clients.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ 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.
Off the main sequence: Refit(net462)src/Refit/Refit.csproj:1
What to do
Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling — start with Refit.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with SystemTextJsonContentSerializer.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
8836 test methods: 8836 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: 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.
0 of 5 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: every package graded here is one this repository's MSBuild projects declare as a direct `PackageReference` (28 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.
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.
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window. Repeated repair below the complexity floor: src/Refit/ApiResponse{T}.cs (4 of 6 changes were fixes); src/Refit/ValidationApiException.cs (3 of 5 changes were fixes); src/Refit.Testing/StubApiResponse.cs (3 of 4 changes were fixes)
Resolve the 3 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with ApiResponse{T}.cs, ValidationApiException.cs, StubApiResponse.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").
Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.
38 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/RequestParameterParsing.cs. Counted over 170 of the 354 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
What to do
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
139 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 57664 LoC in the .NET projects (1.7/KLoC) → score 6.5. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped.
AnalyzerSeverityNone · ×19.editorconfig:789
NoWarnInCsproj — 12 warning codes suppressed in one element · ×4src/tests/Refit.Tests/Refit.Tests.csproj:10
+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 19 AnalyzerSeverityNone finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with .editorconfig (19). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 issue-level).
Resolve the 4 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Refit.Tests.csproj, Refit.Testing.Tests.csproj, Refit.Reflection.Tests.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with RequestBuilderImplementation.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
188 projects, 13802 source files, 117789 hand-written lines of code (57173 production / 60616 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), 524 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).
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.
The repository is well documented: the READMEs for each directory (e.g. src/examples/Documentation/TestingFrameworks/XUnit) describe what they are and how to run them, plus test scenarios; a dedicated breaking-changes document lists every change with links back to feature docs; and an exhaustive Refit.Testing package reference covers installation, quick start, route tables, replies, retries, defaults, ownership, provider readers, custom headers, deterministic tests, composing resilience features, query names/redirect targets, and the API reference. The XML-doc coverage is 100% across every documented type (69-87%), reflecting a strong documentation suite. (12 of 16 sampled documents could not be assessed: 1 of 2 evaluation groups failed.)
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
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.
1 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
The field `SerializedSerialization` in `AnalyzerEmbeddedParserComponentTests` appears to be a typo or redundant naming, likely intended to be `SerializedContent` or similar, given the context of serialization tests. It shares the root 'Serialized' with `SerializedBody` in `ReflectionRequestBuildingTests`, but the double use of 'Serialization' is anomalous and inconsistent with standard naming conventions for test data fields which usually describe the content (e.g., `SerializedBody`, `SerializedContent`).
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.
Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.
Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.
17 % of calls cross a namespace and 2 % go through an interface, but 98 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: large — vertical-slice locality expected.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 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
Resolve the 1 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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).
10 finding(s): 0 critical, 10 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 9 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 129 file(s) — `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/BodyContentEmission.cs` (line 43, line 50, line 79, …), `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/Emitter.cs` (line 374, lines 381–382, line 555, …), `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/FormFieldEmission.cs` (line 29, line 73), `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/InlineRequestEmission.cs` (line 96, line 348, line 372), `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/IsExternalInit.cs` (lines 23–28), … (+124 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 58 of those file(s) — `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/Models/WellKnownTypes.cs`, `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryParameterEmission.cs`, `src/Polyfills/CallerArgumentExpressionAttribute.cs`, `src/Polyfills/CompilerFeatureRequiredAttribute.cs`, `src/Polyfills/DoesNotReturnIfAttribute.cs`, … (+53 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 9 of those file(s) — `src/Refit.Reflection/RestMethodInfoInternal.ParameterBinding.cs`, `src/Refit.Testing/StreamSource.cs`, `src/Refit/ApiResponseExtensions.cs`, `src/Refit/EnumerableExtensions.cs`, `src/Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.Sending.cs`, … (+4 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
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 7 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 (7 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 2 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 (2 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 170 of the 354 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
Resolve the 2 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with JsonContentSerializer.cs, ApiException.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
What it measures: Whether 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.
What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.
Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 87 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.
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.
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.
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.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether 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.
`IGitHubService` declares 16 members: `GetUsersTaskAsync`, `PostUsersTaskAsync`, `GetUsersTaskStringAsync`, `PostUsersTaskStringAsync`, `GetUsersTaskStreamAsync`, `PostUsersTaskStreamAsync`, `GetUsersTaskHttpContentAsync`, `PostUsersTaskHttpContentAsync`, `GetUsersTaskHttpResponseMessageAsync`, `PostUsersTaskHttpResponseMessageAsync`, `GetUsersObservableHttpResponseMessage`, `PostUsersObservableHttpResponseMessage`, `GetUsersTaskTAsync`, `PostUsersTaskTAsync`, `GetUsersTaskApiResponseTAsync`, `PostUsersTaskApiResponseTAsync`. 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. 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/benchmarks/Refit.Benchmarks/IGitHubService.cs:9
What to do
Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.
Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C1 · Data Protection0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.).
Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — a framework authorization attribute/decorator or policy, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.
Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.
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.
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.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 77 of 87 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.8 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
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.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.
Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.
Only 26/87 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.
What to do
Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
Only 2/67 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 67, 8 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.
What to do
Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.
Add a health-check endpoint (AddHealthChecks/MapHealthChecks) so orchestrators and load balancers can probe liveness/readiness.
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.
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.
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.
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 123 use(s) across 63,722 production line(s) (~1.9/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
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.
3 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). (×3) — src/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.cs:243, src/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.cs:255, src/Refit.Testing/StreamSourceContent.cs:92
What to do
Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult().
Other · Security — Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order and crypto hygiene (presence, not runtime).
Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir source itself (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not) for the arms that hold whether or not the code serves HTTP: a weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source, a TLS client that accepts any certificate, and (JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Elixir) an obsolete TLS version; the server controls are not assessed there, and a Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir repository that serves no HTTP of its own is N/A on them. Deterministic.
None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves. — src/examples/SampleUsingLocalApi/RestApiforTest/Program.cs:26
No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)
This web host's pipeline is composed here with no UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts, and nothing says a reverse proxy terminates TLS in front of it. — src/examples/SampleUsingLocalApi/RestApiforTest/Program.cs:26
What to do
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy first, then Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options and a frame policy) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
Enforce HTTPS at the app layer (UseHttpsRedirection / UseHsts) — only skip this if a reverse proxy demonstrably terminates TLS.
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/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.cs:243, src/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.cs:255
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
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.
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.
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 55/235 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.
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. — src/Refit.NativeAotSmoke/Program.cs:257
No CancellationToken parameter — the body observes an ambient token instead (a field or a context object), so the work does stop on cancellation, but a caller cannot cancel this call independently of the owner that created that token. — src/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.RequestBuilding.cs:332
No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×37) — src/Refit/ApiException.cs:240, src/Refit/ApiException.cs:305, src/Refit/ApiResponse{T}.cs:207, …
What to do
Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
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.
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.
The `when` guard on line 598 changes `seenInheritedProperties` with `seenInheritedProperties ??= [with(comparer: SymbolEqualityComparer.Default)]` while deciding whether its arm matches. A guard answers "does this arm apply?" and the runtime evaluates it during PATTERN MATCHING — so the change lands on arms that are then NOT selected, and `&&` short-circuits, so it is skipped altogether whenever the operand to its left already decides the answer. The accounting therefore depends on evaluation order and on how many labels the subject was compared against, not on any statement a reader can point at: the update is missed on exactly the path the left operand rules out, so a counter kept this way cannot reach a limit it is checked against on that path. Move the change out of the guard — leave the clause reading only (`when seenInheritedProperties + 1 >= limit`) and put the mutation in the arm's BODY, where it runs precisely when the arm is chosen, or hoist it above the switch if it must happen for every subject. — src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/Parser.cs:598
What to do
Each finding names the mutation inside the guard and the short-circuiting operator that decides whether it happens at all. Confirm from the two, then move the change out of the guard: a `when` clause is asked whether an arm MATCHES, and it is evaluated during pattern matching — on arms that are then not selected, and not at all once an operand to its left has answered. Leave the guard reading only (`when Failures + 1 >= Max`) and put the increment in the arm's BODY, where it runs exactly when the arm is chosen, or hoist it above the switch if it must happen on every subject.
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.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
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.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
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.
An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. — src/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.cs:394
`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. (×3) — src/examples/Documentation/Testing/TestingStreaming.cs:363, src/examples/Documentation/Paging/PagingSample.cs:148, src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Other/OtherSerializers.cs:141
`catch (ArgumentException)` 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. (×5) — src/examples/Documentation/Clients/SettingsPolicies.cs:60, src/examples/Documentation/Queries/Formatters.cs:95, src/examples/Documentation/Queries/Formatters.cs:105, …
`catch (NotSupportedException)` 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/Queries/Converters.cs:71
`catch (ArgumentNullException)` 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/Queries/Formatters.cs:115
`catch (FormatException)` 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/Headers/Headers.cs:113
`catch (IndexOutOfRangeException)` 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/RuntimeHelpers/AttributeSample.cs:38
`catch (PlatformNotSupportedException)` 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/RuntimeHelpers/BodySample.cs:102
`catch (ObjectDisposedException)` 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/RuntimeHelpers/DispatchSample.cs:140
What to do
Swallowed exception (empty catch)
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. 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 `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.
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.
~2.0 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 437 suppression(s) across the 215674 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 `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
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 — 7 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
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 — 37 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.
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — analyzer environment
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
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
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) — 93 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 (48 value object(s))
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
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
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:789— 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:814— 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/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: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:44— 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:45— 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:46— 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:49— 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:52— 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.
NoWarnInCsproj — 12 warning codes suppressed in one element src/tests/Refit.Tests/Refit.Tests.csproj:10— A single <NoWarn> suppresses 12 warning codes (IL2026;IL2046;IL2067;IL2072;IL2075;IL2091;IL2109;IL3050;IL3051;RF003;RF004;RF005) in one stroke — one team-wide decision, not 12 independent debts. Review the set centrally rather than code-by-code; each code you can re-enable is one less blanket suppression. (Every code still counts toward the score and metrics.)
NoWarnInCsproj — 12 warning codes suppressed in one element src/tests/Refit.Testing.Tests/Refit.Testing.Tests.csproj:10— A single <NoWarn> suppresses 12 warning codes (IL2026;IL2046;IL2067;IL2072;IL2075;IL2091;IL2109;IL3050;IL3051;RF003;RF004;RF005) in one stroke — one team-wide decision, not 12 independent debts. Review the set centrally rather than code-by-code; each code you can re-enable is one less blanket suppression. (Every code still counts toward the score and metrics.)
NoWarnInCsproj — 12 warning codes suppressed in one element src/tests/Refit.Reflection.Tests/Refit.Reflection.Tests.csproj:10— A single <NoWarn> suppresses 12 warning codes (IL2026;IL2046;IL2067;IL2072;IL2075;IL2091;IL2109;IL3050;IL3051;RF003;RF004;RF005) in one stroke — one team-wide decision, not 12 independent debts. Review the set centrally rather than code-by-code; each code you can re-enable is one less blanket suppression. (Every code still counts toward the score and metrics.)
NoWarnInCsproj — 12 warning codes suppressed in one element src/tests/Refit.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Refit.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests.csproj:10— A single <NoWarn> suppresses 12 warning codes (IL2026;IL2046;IL2067;IL2072;IL2075;IL2091;IL2109;IL3050;IL3051;RF003;RF004;RF005) in one stroke — one team-wide decision, not 12 independent debts. Review the set centrally rather than code-by-code; each code you can re-enable is one less blanket suppression. (Every code still counts toward the score and metrics.)
EmptyCatchBlock src/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.cs:394— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
CoverageExclusion src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/HttpMethodAttributeParsing.cs:18— method MapKnownHttpVerb — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/HttpMethodAttributeParsing.cs:89— method FindMethodPropertyGetter — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/HttpMethodAttributeParsing.cs:109— method GetterReturnExpression — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/InterfaceMemberParsing.cs:105— method GetInterfacePropertyRequestKey — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/InterfaceStubGeneratorV2.cs:210— method IsInterfaceMethodDeclaration — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/MultipartContentEmission.cs:145— method AppendMultipartAddArguments — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/Polyfills/Index.cs:18— record 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/Polyfills/Range.cs:18— record 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryParameterEmission.cs:256— method AppendInlineQueryStatement — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryParameterParsing.cs:301— method ResolveIndexedCollectionFormatValue — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryParameterParsing.cs:407— method GetSoleTypeArgument — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryParameterParsing.cs:704— method TryReadEnumMemberValue — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryParameterParsing.cs:771— method CanElementBeNull — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryValueEmission.cs:121— method ComputeFastPathExpression — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/RequestParameterKindParsing.cs:113— method IsUri — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/RequestParsing.cs:471— method TryReadQueryUriFormat — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/RequestParsing.cs:503— method TryReadTimeout — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/SpanBufferEmission.cs:35— method Indent — 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/ArgumentExceptionHelper.cs:14— class ArgumentExceptionHelper — 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/ArgumentOutOfRangeExceptionHelper.cs:11— class ArgumentOutOfRangeExceptionHelper — 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/CallerArgumentExpressionAttribute.cs:13— 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/CollectionExtensions.cs:16— class CollectionExtensions — 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/CompilerFeatureRequiredAttribute.cs:10— class CompilerFeatureRequiredAttribute — 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:12— 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/DynamicDependencyAttribute.cs:9— class DynamicDependencyAttribute — 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.
+ 37 more in this group — see findings.md.
X2 · Cancellation propagation· Async method without CancellationToken · ×37
Async method without CancellationToken: Create src/Refit/ApiException.cs:240— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetContentAsAsync src/Refit/ApiException.cs:305— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ThrowsApiExceptionAsync src/Refit/ApiResponse{T}.cs:207— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: CreateExceptionAsync src/Refit/DefaultApiExceptionFactory.cs:25— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: CreateDeserializationExceptionAsync src/Refit/RequestExecutionHelpers.cs:544— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: CreateAsync src/Refit/ValidationApiException.cs:95— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Task_Async src/benchmarks/Refit.Benchmarks/EndToEndBenchmark.cs:133— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: TaskString_Async src/benchmarks/Refit.Benchmarks/EndToEndBenchmark.cs:155— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: TaskStream_Async src/benchmarks/Refit.Benchmarks/EndToEndBenchmark.cs:179— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: TaskHttpContent_Async src/benchmarks/Refit.Benchmarks/EndToEndBenchmark.cs:203— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: TaskT_Async src/benchmarks/Refit.Benchmarks/EndToEndBenchmark.cs:257— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ProduceAsync src/benchmarks/Refit.Benchmarks/FormBodySerializationBenchmark.cs:124— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: HandWrittenCreateAsync src/benchmarks/Refit.Benchmarks/HandWrittenClientComparisonBenchmark.cs:109— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ProduceAsync src/benchmarks/Refit.Benchmarks/RequestBodySerializationBenchmark.cs:73— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: RefitBufferedAsync src/benchmarks/Refit.Benchmarks/StreamingBenchmark.cs:71— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: RefitBufferedAsync src/benchmarks/Refit.Benchmarks/StreamingProfiledBenchmarks.cs:67— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Serialization.cs:27— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: RunContextSerializerAsync src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Serialization.cs:64— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: RunContextClientAsync src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Serialization.cs:76— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: RunDefaultsAsync src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Serialization.cs:103— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: RunFastPathAsync src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Serialization.cs:146— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: RunCombinedContextsAsync src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Serialization.cs:161— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: RunAsync src/examples/Documentation/Responses/Responses.cs:14— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ShowSuccessAsync src/examples/Documentation/Responses/Responses.cs:25— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ShowInvalidJsonAsync src/examples/Documentation/Responses/Responses.cs:113— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/examples/Documentation/Testing/TestingStreaming.cs:363— `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.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/examples/Documentation/Clients/SettingsPolicies.cs:60— `catch (ArgumentException)` 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.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/examples/Documentation/Queries/Converters.cs:71— `catch (NotSupportedException)` 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.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/examples/Documentation/Queries/Formatters.cs:95— `catch (ArgumentException)` 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.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/examples/Documentation/Queries/Formatters.cs:105— `catch (ArgumentException)` 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.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/examples/Documentation/Queries/Formatters.cs:115— `catch (ArgumentNullException)` 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.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/examples/Documentation/Headers/Headers.cs:113— `catch (FormatException)` 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.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/examples/Documentation/Clients/Reflection/ReflectionClients.cs:121— `catch (ArgumentException)` 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.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/examples/Documentation/Paging/PagingSample.cs:148— `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.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/examples/Documentation/RuntimeHelpers/AttributeSample.cs:38— `catch (IndexOutOfRangeException)` 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.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/examples/Documentation/RuntimeHelpers/BodySample.cs:102— `catch (PlatformNotSupportedException)` 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.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/examples/Documentation/RuntimeHelpers/DispatchSample.cs:140— `catch (ObjectDisposedException)` 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.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/examples/Documentation/RuntimeHelpers/PathSample.cs:67— `catch (ArgumentException)` 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.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Other/OtherSerializers.cs:141— `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.
BareSuppressMessage src/Refit/ApiResponse{T}.cs:149— SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/Refit/ApiResponse{T}.cs:161— SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/Refit/IApiResponse.cs:71— SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/Refit/IApiResponse.cs:80— SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/Refit/IApiResponse.cs:90— SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/Refit/SystemTextJsonContentSerializer.JsonContext.cs:190— UnconditionalSuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/Refit/SystemTextJsonContentSerializer.JsonContext.cs:191— UnconditionalSuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/tests/Refit.GeneratedCode.TestModels/Scenarios/IGeneratedUserApi.cs:39— System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
TooManyMethods: RequestBuilderImplementation src/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.cs— TooManyMethods — 1517 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 102 methods, declared across 6 files: Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.cs (26), Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.QueryAndHeaders.cs (25), Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.RequestBuilding.cs (24), Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.Payload.cs (13), +2 more file(s). The bar is 30 methods; this is 72 over it, 3.40× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: GeneratedRequestRunner src/Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.cs— TooManyMethods — 584 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 58 methods, declared across 5 files: Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.cs (35), Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.BodyContent.cs (10), Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.Sending.cs (7), Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.JsonTypeInfo.cs (5), +1 more file(s). The bar is 30 methods; this is 28 over it, 1.93× 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: RestMethodInfoInternal src/Refit.Reflection/RestMethodInfoInternal.cs— TooManyMethods — 690 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 51 methods, declared across 4 files: Refit.Reflection/RestMethodInfoInternal.cs (21), Refit.Reflection/RestMethodInfoInternal.ParameterBinding.cs (19), Refit.Reflection/RestMethodInfoInternal.AttributeReading.cs (10), Refit.Reflection/RestMethodInfoInternal.PathPrefix.cs (1). The bar is 30 methods; this is 21 over it, 1.70× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: SystemTextJsonContentSerializer src/Refit/SystemTextJsonContentSerializer.cs— TooManyMethods — 345 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 44 methods, declared across 2 files: Refit/SystemTextJsonContentSerializer.cs (29), Refit/SystemTextJsonContentSerializer.JsonContext.cs (15). The bar is 30 methods; this is 14 over it, 1.47× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: RestService src/Refit/RestService.cs— TooManyMethods — 375 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 39 methods, declared across 2 files: Refit/RestService.cs (31), Refit/RestService.JsonContext.cs (8). The bar is 30 methods; this is 9 over it, 1.30× 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: RequestParameterParsing src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/RequestParameterParsing.cs— TooManyMethods — 561 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 35 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 5 over it, 1.17× 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: RefitInterfaceAnalyzer src/Refit.Analyzers.Shared/RefitInterfaceAnalyzer.cs— TooManyMethods — 288 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 33 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 3 over it, 1.10× 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.
Sync-over-async blocking — 3 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/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.cs:243— `.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/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.cs:255— `.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/Refit.Testing/StreamSourceContent.cs:92— `.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).
Repeated repair: src/Refit/ApiResponse{T}.cs src/Refit/ApiResponse{T}.cs:76— src/Refit/ApiResponse{T}.cs changed 6 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 2 (its worst body is ApiResponse.IsSuccessfulWithContent.get at line 76), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix: disambiguate case-differing parameters, preserve ContentLength header, and surface buffering exceptions (#2360)”; “fix(debugging): stop debugger displays rendering as a bare null (#2315)”; “fix(generator): ship a single Roslyn analyzer slot (#2305)”; “build: raise the analyzer rules to error and fix the reported code (#2299)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-20..2026-10-18, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-20 00:11:10 +11:00' --until='2026-10-18 00:11:10 +11:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Refit/ApiResponse{T}.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src/Refit/ValidationApiException.cs src/Refit/ValidationApiException.cs:272— src/Refit/ValidationApiException.cs changed 5 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 8 (its worst body is ValidationApiException.ReadExtensionValue at line 272), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix: disambiguate case-differing parameters, preserve ContentLength header, and surface buffering exceptions (#2360)”; “fix(debugging): stop debugger displays rendering as a bare null (#2315)”; “build: raise the analyzer rules to error and fix the reported code (#2299)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-20..2026-10-18, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-20 00:11:10 +11:00' --until='2026-10-18 00:11:10 +11:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Refit/ValidationApiException.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src/Refit.Testing/StubApiResponse.cs src/Refit.Testing/StubApiResponse.cs:71— src/Refit.Testing/StubApiResponse.cs changed 4 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 1 (its worst body is StubApiResponse.HasRequestError at line 71), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(debugging): stop debugger displays rendering as a bare null (#2315)”; “fix(generator): ship a single Roslyn analyzer slot (#2305)”; “build: raise the analyzer rules to error and fix the reported code (#2299)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-20..2026-10-18, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-20 00:11:10 +11:00' --until='2026-10-18 00:11:10 +11:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Refit.Testing/StubApiResponse.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
ClassTooLong: InlineRequestEmission src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/InlineRequestEmission.cs— ClassTooLong — 470 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 25 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 70 over it, 1.18× 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.
ClassTooLong: QueryObjectEmission src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryObjectEmission.cs— ClassTooLong — 428 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 21 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 28 over it, 1.07× 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.
ClassTooLong: RequestExecutionHelpers src/Refit/RequestExecutionHelpers.cs— ClassTooLong — 414 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 22 methods, declared across 2 files: Refit/RequestExecutionHelpers.cs (19), Refit/RequestExecutionHelpers.Streaming.cs (3). The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 14 over it, 1.04× 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.
Change coupling: JsonContentSerializer.cs ↔ RefitSettings.cs src/Refit/JsonContentSerializer.cs:1— `src/Refit/JsonContentSerializer.cs` and `src/Refit/RefitSettings.cs` change together 90% of the time (9 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `aa78fc08` Housekeeping Update tests to remove need for comments (#1697) (at that commit the files were still `Refit/JsonContentSerializer.cs` and `Refit/RefitSettings.cs`); `0dd5a229` Rename IContentSerializer to IHttpContentSerializer and related metho… (at that commit the files were still `Refit/JsonContentSerializer.cs` and `Refit/RefitSettings.cs`); `fc263f9d` First pass at NRT annotations (at that commit the files were still `Refit/JsonContentSerializer.cs` and `Refit/RefitSettings.cs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: ApiException.cs ↔ JsonContentSerializer.cs src/Refit/ApiException.cs:1— `src/Refit/ApiException.cs` and `src/Refit/JsonContentSerializer.cs` change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `aa78fc08` Housekeeping Update tests to remove need for comments (#1697) (at that commit the files were still `Refit/ApiException.cs` and `Refit/JsonContentSerializer.cs`); `0dd5a229` Rename IContentSerializer to IHttpContentSerializer and related metho… (at that commit the files were still `Refit/ApiException.cs` and `Refit/JsonContentSerializer.cs`); `fc263f9d` First pass at NRT annotations (at that commit the files were still `Refit/ApiException.cs` and `Refit/JsonContentSerializer.cs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/ReflectionArgumentEmission.cs:30— src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/ReflectionArgumentEmission.cs:30-42 | src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/ReflectionArgumentEmission.cs:119-131 — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/ReflectionArgumentEmission.cs:30` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/ReflectionArgumentEmission.cs:133` calls `AppendText` and `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/ReflectionArgumentEmission.cs:44` 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 (13 lines × 2) src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/Parser.cs:783— src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/Parser.cs:783-795 | src/Refit.Analyzers.Shared/RefitInterfaceAnalyzer.cs:466-478 — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryObjectEmission.cs:32— src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryObjectEmission.cs:32-40 | src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryObjectEmission.cs:698-706 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryDictionaryEmission.cs:48— src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryDictionaryEmission.cs:48-57 | src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryObjectEmission.cs:179-187 — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryParameterEmission.cs:370— src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryParameterEmission.cs:370-374 | src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryParameterEmission.cs:518-522 — 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/Clients/Clients.cs:117— src/examples/Documentation/Clients/Clients.cs:117-121 | src/examples/Documentation/Clients/Clients.cs:143-147 — 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/Clients/Clients.cs:117` 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/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Other/OtherSerializers.cs:38— src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Other/OtherSerializers.cs:38-43 | src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Other/OtherSerializers.cs:92-97 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Serialization.cs:164— src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Serialization.cs:164-169 | src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Serialization.cs:173-178 — 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.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.cs:243— 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/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.cs:255— 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.
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.
XxxComment src/tests/Refit.Tests/IntegrationTestHelper.cs:28— // XXX: This is an evil hack, but it's okay for a unit test — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FileTooLong: InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/RequestParameterParsing.cs src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/RequestParameterParsing.cs— FileTooLong — 565 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 65 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
Duplicated block (20–22 lines × 2) src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/MethodSignatureEmission.cs:30— src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/MethodSignatureEmission.cs:30-49 | src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/MethodSignatureEmission.cs:108-129 — 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 (15–21 lines × 2) src/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.QueryAndHeaders.Helpers.cs:95— src/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.QueryAndHeaders.Helpers.cs:95-115 | src/Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.cs:481-495 — 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/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.QueryAndHeaders.Helpers.cs:95` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also 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 (15 lines × 2) src/Refit.HttpClientFactory/HttpClientFactoryCore.cs:247— src/Refit.HttpClientFactory/HttpClientFactoryCore.cs:247-261 | src/Refit.HttpClientFactory/HttpClientFactoryCore.cs:334-348 — 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/Refit.HttpClientFactory/HttpClientFactoryCore.cs:247` 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 (16 lines × 2) src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/RequestParameterParsingHelpers.cs:116— src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/RequestParameterParsingHelpers.cs:116-131 | src/Refit.Reflection/RestMethodInfoInternal.PathPrefix.cs:18-33 — 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 (11 lines × 2) src/Refit.HttpClientFactory/HttpClientFactoryCore.cs:120— src/Refit.HttpClientFactory/HttpClientFactoryCore.cs:120-130 | src/Refit.HttpClientFactory/HttpClientFactoryCore.cs:291-301 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Refit.HttpClientFactory/HttpClientFactoryCore.cs:120` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/Refit.HttpClientFactory/HttpClientFactoryCore.cs:117` calls `AddSingleton` and `src/Refit.HttpClientFactory/HttpClientFactoryCore.cs:289` 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 (4–11 lines × 3) src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryObjectEmission.cs:286— src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryObjectEmission.cs:286-296 | src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryObjectEmission.cs:381-390 | src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryObjectEmission.cs:514-517 — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/QueryObjectEmission.cs:286` 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.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.cs:30— src/Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.cs:30-40 | src/Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.cs:56-65 — 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/Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.cs:30` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/ReflectionArgumentEmission.cs:24— src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/ReflectionArgumentEmission.cs:24-31 | src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/ReflectionArgumentEmission.cs:69-76 — 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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/ReflectionArgumentEmission.cs:24` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also 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 (7–8 lines × 2) src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Other/OtherSerializers.cs:52— src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Other/OtherSerializers.cs:52-59 | src/examples/Documentation/Serialization/Other/OtherSerializers.cs:153-159 — 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `serializer` to `NewtonsoftJsonContentSerializer` in one and `XmlContentSerializer` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Off the main sequence: Refit(net462) src/Refit/Refit.csproj:1— Refit(net462): abstractness 0.13, instability 0.00, distance 0.87 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 5 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Low cohesion: SystemTextJsonContentSerializer (LCOM4 6) src/Refit/SystemTextJsonContentSerializer.cs:26— SystemTextJsonContentSerializer's methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
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.
X2 · Cancellation propagation· Async local function without CancellationToken · ×1
Async local function without CancellationToken: ProduceUploadRecordsAsync src/Refit.NativeAotSmoke/Program.cs:257— 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.
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard· Pattern guard mutates state while matching · ×1
Pattern guard mutates state while matching src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/Parser.cs:598— The `when` guard on line 598 changes `seenInheritedProperties` with `seenInheritedProperties ??= [with(comparer: SymbolEqualityComparer.Default)]` while deciding whether its arm matches. A guard answers "does this arm apply?" and the runtime evaluates it during PATTERN MATCHING — so the change lands on arms that are then NOT selected, and `&&` short-circuits, so it is skipped altogether whenever the operand to its left already decides the answer. The accounting therefore depends on evaluation order and on how many labels the subject was compared against, not on any statement a reader can point at: the update is missed on exactly the path the left operand rules out, so a counter kept this way cannot reach a limit it is checked against on that path. Move the change out of the guard — leave the clause reading only (`when seenInheritedProperties + 1 >= limit`) and put the mutation in the arm's BODY, where it runs precisely when the arm is chosen, or hoist it above the switch if it must happen for every subject.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.cs:394— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Duplicated predicate src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/RequestParsing.cs:400— `!arguments.IsEmpty && arguments[0].Value is string path` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/RequestParsing.cs, src/Refit.Analyzers.Shared/RefitInterfaceAnalyzer.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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/InterfaceMemberParsing.cs:117— `!arguments.IsEmpty && arguments[0].Value is string { Length: > 0 } key` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/InterfaceMemberParsing.cs, src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/RequestParameterKindParsing.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/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/Parser.cs:787— `member is IMethodSymbol method && IsRefitMethod(method, httpMethodAttribute)` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/Parser.cs, src/Refit.Analyzers.Shared/RefitInterfaceAnalyzer.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/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.QueryAndHeaders.cs:329— `method == HttpMethod.Get || method == HttpMethod.Head` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.QueryAndHeaders.cs, src/Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.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/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.QueryAndHeaders.cs:134— `queryParamsToAdd is not null && queryParamsToAdd.Count != 0` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.QueryAndHeaders.cs, src/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.RequestBuilding.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/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.QueryAndHeaders.Helpers.cs:107— `request.Content is not null && HttpHeaderApplier.ContainsHeader(request.Content.Headers, name)` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Refit.Reflection/RequestBuilderImplementation.QueryAndHeaders.Helpers.cs, src/Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.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/Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.BodyContent.cs:83— `streamBody && !UsesSynchronousSerialization(settings)` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.BodyContent.cs, src/Refit/GeneratedRequestRunner.JsonTypeInfo.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.
No security response headers detected — None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
No security response headers detected src/examples/SampleUsingLocalApi/RestApiforTest/Program.cs:26— This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
No app-layer HTTPS enforcement detected — No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)
No app-layer HTTPS enforcement detected src/examples/SampleUsingLocalApi/RestApiforTest/Program.cs:26— This web host's pipeline is composed here with no UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts, and nothing says a reverse proxy terminates TLS in front of it.
Fat interface: IGitHubService (16 members) src/benchmarks/Refit.Benchmarks/IGitHubService.cs:9— `IGitHubService` declares 16 members: `GetUsersTaskAsync`, `PostUsersTaskAsync`, `GetUsersTaskStringAsync`, `PostUsersTaskStringAsync`, `GetUsersTaskStreamAsync`, `PostUsersTaskStreamAsync`, `GetUsersTaskHttpContentAsync`, `PostUsersTaskHttpContentAsync`, `GetUsersTaskHttpResponseMessageAsync`, `PostUsersTaskHttpResponseMessageAsync`, `GetUsersObservableHttpResponseMessage`, `PostUsersObservableHttpResponseMessage`, `GetUsersTaskTAsync`, `PostUsersTaskTAsync`, `GetUsersTaskApiResponseTAsync`, `PostUsersTaskApiResponseTAsync`. 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. 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.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 38 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/RequestParameterParsing.cs, src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/RequestParsing.cs, src/Refit.Reflection/RestMethodInfoInternal.cs, src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/RequestParameterKindParsing.cs, src/Refit.Reflection/RestMethodInfoInternal.ParameterBinding.cs, src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/InterfaceStubGeneratorV2.cs, src/Refit/ApiException.cs, src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/MultipartParameterParsing.cs (+30 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
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/`.
D21 · Naming Consistency· The field `SerializedSerialization` in `AnalyzerEmbeddedParserComponentTests` appears to be a typo or redundant naming, likely intended to be `SerializedContent` or similar, given the context of serialization tests. It shares the root 'Serialized' with `SerializedBody` in `ReflectionRequestBuildingTests`, but the double use of 'Serialization' is anomalous and inconsistent with standard naming conventions for test data fields which usually describe the content (e.g., `SerializedBody`, `SerializedContent`). · ×1
The field `SerializedSerialization` in `AnalyzerEmbeddedParserComponentTests` appears to be a typo or redundant naming, likely intended to be `SerializedContent` or similar, given the context of serialization tests. It shares the root 'Serialized' with `SerializedBody` in `ReflectionRequestBuildingTests`, but the double use of 'Serialization' is anomalous and inconsistent with standard naming conventions for test data fields which usually describe the content (e.g., `SerializedBody`, `SerializedContent`). — Rename `SerializedSerialization` to `SerializedContent` or `SerializedData` to align with `SerializedBody` and standard test fixture naming. (symbols: Field: private int Refit.GeneratorTests.AnalyzerEmbeddedParserComponentTests.SerializedSerialization, Field: private string Refit.Reflection.Tests.ReflectionRequestBuildingTests.SerializedBody)
Pass-through layer src/examples/Documentation/Bodies/ContentOnlySerializer.cs:10— ContentOnlySerializer: all 3 public methods forward their arguments unchanged to _serializer and add no behaviour — an extra hop (and usually an extra interface) to trace through. Call _serializer directly, or give the layer a job.
D28 · Secrets (history)· Rotate the exposed credentials · ×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.
Inconsistent root namespaces — Only 26/87 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.
P12 · CI test-gate honesty· Sleep-based test synchronization · ×1
Sleep-based test synchronization — 7 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.
Logging is not universal — Only 2/67 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 67, 8 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.
X2 · Cancellation propagation· Not all async methods take a CancellationToken · ×1
Not all async methods take a CancellationToken — Only 55/235 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.
Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score — ~2.0 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 437 suppression(s) across the 215674 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.
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.
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 scan
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
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 93 file(s) — `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/BodyContentEmission.cs`, `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/Emitter.cs`, `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/FormFieldEmission.cs`, `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/InlineRequestEmission.cs`, `src/InterfaceStubGenerator.Shared/IsExternalInit.cs`, … (+88 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
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 01a167db-dad6-75a3-8a65-126d71a57e3e · 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 — 6 field(s) across 2 categories, 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.
Issues: 35 · Warnings: 170 · Recommendations: 25 · Info: 70 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 23-10-2026 @ 08:23 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.