winit — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

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

The system holds a strong overall standing of 77%, indicating a robust asset that delivers value but carries manageable risks. With 60,853 lines of production code and a modest rebuild cost of roughly €100,000, the platform represents a significant investment. The architecture is exceptionally sound, and event sourcing is mature, providing a stable foundation for future growth. However, documentation gaps and code quality issues create hidden costs that threaten delivery speed and long-term maintainability.

The most pressing risk is a velocity tax on every change. Code quality signals average 7.5 out of 10, meaning modifications in weaker areas likely cost 2–5% more effort than in clean code. This inefficiency compounds as the codebase grows, effectively charging a toll on every feature release. While the architecture prevents structural ripples, the lack of clarity in implementation details slows down engineers, turning small updates into prolonged efforts and increasing operational costs over time.

A secondary concern is the maturity of knowledge transfer. Documentation is sparse, making it difficult for new team members to onboard quickly or for existing staff to understand historical context. Without clear records of design decisions, the team risks repeating past mistakes or making uninformed changes. This gap exposes the business to reliability risks, as troubleshooting becomes slower and more error-prone when critical context is missing from the codebase.

What is genuinely good is the architectural integrity and the high maturity of event sourcing. The system is well-structured, minimizing the risk of widespread failures when changes are made. This solid base means that fixing documentation and code quality issues will have immediate, visible benefits without requiring a complete overhaul. The platform is ready for scale, provided the team addresses the friction in daily development.

Focus first on recording significant design decisions in a centralized location. This single action pays for itself within months by reducing the annual drag on engineering capacity. It provides the context needed to make better future choices and accelerates onboarding. Once this foundation is laid, addressing the code quality tax will yield the next layer of efficiency gains, ensuring the system remains a competitive asset rather than a liability.

Code Health 80% Strong Architecture 98% ★ Exemplary Maturity 72% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 79% Strong Security 77% Adequate · gated by D36 Event Sourcing 100% ★ Exemplary Performance 100% ★ Exemplary

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

Maturity 72% · 46% weightSecurity 77% · 25% weightReadiness 79% · 14% weightCode Health 80% · 8% weightArchitecture 98% · 4% weightEvent Sourcing 100% · 2% weightPerformance 100% · 1% weight

Every measured lens already clears the Healthy floor — there is no single drag to lift.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (21+)

21 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-09-13) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D1 · WindowState::configure_frame_and_size (cyclomatic 16) winit-wayland/src/window/state/configure.rs
D2 · WindowState::configure_frame_and_size (cognitive 18) winit-wayland/src/window/state/configure.rs
D3 · TooManyMethods: WindowCommon winit-wayland/src/window/common.rs
D3 · MethodTooLong: Window.new winit-wayland/src/window/mod.rs
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) winit-android/src/event_loop.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) winit-wayland/src/window/state.rs
D5 · Off the main sequence: dpi
D5 · Off the main sequence: winit-common
D6 · Low cohesion: ActiveEventLoop (LCOM4 4) winit-appkit/src/event_loop.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: WinitState (LCOM4 4) winit-wayland/src/state.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: ActiveEventLoop (LCOM4 4) winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs
D15 · Hotspot: winit-win32/src/window.rs winit-win32/src/window.rs
D22 · Redundant operations for retrieving data transfer content. `fetch_data_transfer` takes a specific type filter, while `data_transfer` takes only an ID. It is unclear if `data_transfer` returns a generic container or if it is a legacy alias. The naming convention `fetch_` vs direct noun access is inconsistent with other methods like `create_proxy`.
D22 · Duplicate methods with identical signatures and likely identical implementation intent. `add_type` and `with_type` are semantically equivalent in builder patterns.
D22 · While technically distinct (one converts physical to logical, the other logical to physical), the naming symmetry is broken by the parameter names. `from_physical` takes a `physical` arg, but `from_logical` takes a `logical` arg. However, looking at `LogicalPosition.from_physical` vs `PhysicalPosition.from_logical`, the pattern is consistent. The inconsistency lies in `PixelUnit` which lacks `from_logical`/`from_physical` static constructors entirely, relying on `to_logical`/`to_physical` instance methods. This forces users to use different patterns for `PixelUnit` vs `LogicalUnit`/`PhysicalUnit`.
D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: icon.rs ↔ mod.rs winit-win32/src/icon.rs
D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: event_loop.rs ↔ mod.rs winit-android/src/event_loop.rs
D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: mod.rs ↔ event_processor.rs winit-wayland/src/seat/touch/mod.rs
D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: view.rs ↔ mod.rs winit-uikit/src/view.rs
D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: mod.rs ↔ event_loop.rs winit-wayland/src/seat/touch/mod.rs
D35 · Change coupling: mod.rs ↔ mod.rs winit-wayland/src/seat/pointer/mod.rs

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €33,000–€170,000

Cost to rebuild	€33,000–€170,000 (0.3–1.1 person-years (558–1,769 h), ~1–2 engineers)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	1.2× (at 77% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.7 person-years of build effort (about ~€100,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 72% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 1.2× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.

Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2).

+3.3 pts · Low effort · Documentation Quality

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

+4.4 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.

+3.5 pts · Medium effort · Documentation (README)

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

The top fix pays for itself · High · Economics

The top-ranked fix costs roughly 1–3 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 3.5–23.7 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~70,997 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 1–10 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 2–5% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.

Evidence: D15 churn: 17,506 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~70,997/year · D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 7.5/10 ⇒ a 2–5% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Low effort ⇒ about 1–3 engineer-day(s)

→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 10 months.

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.

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

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

A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics

The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 7.5/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 2–5% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)

Evidence: D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 7.5/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured

→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

169 modules, 594 dependencies. 6 dependency cycles across 46 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 129 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 dpi	2 winit_common.xkb.state	3 winit_core.keyboard	4 winit_web.main_thread	5 winit_core.data_transfer	6 winit_core.event	7 winit_core.monitor	8 winit_web.async.dispatcher	9 winit_appkit.monitor	10 winit_common.xkb	11 winit_core.cursor	12 winit_core.icon	13 winit_core.window	14 winit_core.event_loop	15 winit_android.event_loop	16 winit.platform_impl.linux	17 winit_appkit.app_state	18 winit_uikit.window	20 winit_wayland.state	21 winit_web.web_sys.canvas	23 winit_appkit.view	24 winit_appkit.window_delegate	26 winit_wayland.window.state	27 winit_web.cursor	28 winit_web	29 winit_win32.window_state	30 winit.event_loop	31 winit_web.monitor	32 winit_wayland.event_loop	34 winit_x11.xdisplay	35 winit_web.event_loop.runner	36 winit_win32.event_loop.runner	37 winit_x11.event_loop	38 winit_win32.event_loop
1 dpi
2 winit_common.xkb.state
3 winit_core.keyboard
4 winit_web.main_thread
5 winit_core.data_transfer				3
6 winit_core.event	1	1	5
7 winit_core.monitor	2			1					1
8 winit_web.async.dispatcher				2
9 winit_appkit.monitor	1			1			3
10 winit_common.xkb		2				2
11 winit_core.cursor				1						2
12 winit_core.icon				1						1
13 winit_core.window	10			2			2		1	2	2	2
14 winit_core.event_loop				1	1				1		2	1	3		4
15 winit_android.event_loop	6					2	1				3	1	14	6		1
16 winit.platform_impl.linux											1			3	2
17 winit_appkit.app_state				1	1								1	3	1
18 winit_uikit.window	10			1			2		1		2	2	22		1
19 winit_wayland.popup	5						1			1	1	1	12		1
20 winit_wayland.state									1				2		1														1
21 winit_web.web_sys.canvas	3			1			1						2		3									1
22 winit_appkit.event_loop				1	1				1		2		3	6	1	1	2
23 winit_appkit.view	2	1	1	1		5							2				2
24 winit_appkit.window_delegate	6			2		1	2		2		1	1	16				3
25 winit_orbital.event_loop			2			3			1		2		3	6	2	1
26 winit_wayland.window.state	5						1				1	1	9		2				2
27 winit_web.cursor				5						1	4				2			1		2
28 winit_web				1						7	1		1											1
29 winit_win32.window_state	4	1					1					1	5								1		1
30 winit.event_loop											1			3	2	1									5
31 winit_web.monitor	3			3			2	1	2	3					2			1				1			6						3
32 winit_wayland.event_loop					1	1					2		4	6	3				3								1
33 winit_web.window	5						1	1			1	1	12		2					1								1
34 winit_x11.xdisplay									1	3	1				1													1
35 winit_web.event_loop.runner				2		1		1					1	4	6							1			4			2	2
36 winit_win32.event_loop.runner					4								3	3			1												1					1
37 winit_x11.event_loop					1	3				1	2		3	6	2															3
38 winit_win32.event_loop	1				1	5					2		3	8		1							2			1						5
39 winit_x11.window	13						3				2	2	22		3															1			1
40 winit_win32.window	8						1				1	1	15		2								2			1						2		2

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

At a glance — Code Health · 80% · Strong ·

The Good

D3 · Rust God Classes 7.1 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.6 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 9.6

The Bad

D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 5.5 D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 5.0

At a glance — Architecture · 98% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · Rust Coupling 9.3 D6 · Rust Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.7 D22 · Rust Internal API Consistency 7.0 D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 9.2 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 72% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 8.8 D16 · Rust Bus Factor 9.8 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 7.6 D21 · Rust Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 8.9 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.5 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Ugly

M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 3.0

At a glance — Readiness · 79% · Strong ·

The Good

D9 · Rust Test Distribution 10.0 D11 · Rust Test Reliability 10.0 D13 · Rust Secret Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 10.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 7.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Bad

P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0

At a glance — Security · 77% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

The Good

D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 8.4 D30 · Rust Dependency Vulnerabilities 10.0 D43 · Rust Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Rust Platform End-of-Life 10.0

The Ugly

D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

ES1 · Repo Fold determinism 10.0 ES2 · Repo Immutable events 10.0

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2021 — Injection	23	High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by establishing a structured repository for architectural decisions to capture context and consequences, while simultaneously updating the root README to clearly document how to run the test suite. Address the identified documentation quality issues and resolve the nine high-churn complexity hotspots, prioritizing event_loop.rs, mod.rs, and window_delegate.rs. Finally, clean up the single orphaned file to ensure all code is supported by current knowledge.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2).	+3.3 pts	Low	Documentation Quality
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).	+4.4 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.	+3.5 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.	+1.7 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness
Resolve the 9 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with event_loop.rs (2), mod.rs (2), window_delegate.rs.	+1.8 pts	High	Churn × Complexity Hotspots
The release job declares an environment, but its protection rules are not visible from the repository — confirm required reviewers are attached, or publish as a draft release so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.	+1.6 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.	+0.8 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.	+0.7 pts	Low	Supply-chain Provenance & Signing

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 86 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 2% slop · 39% mixed · 59% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
winit-android/src/event_loop.rs	1.4	Slop	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: event_loop.rs ↔ mod.rs
winit-uikit/src/window.rs	2.7	Slop	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: window.rs ↔ mod.rs
winit-wayland/src/window/mod.rs	3.0	Mixed	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: mod.rs ↔ mod.rs
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
winit-orbital/src/window.rs	4.4	Mixed	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: window.rs ↔ mod.rs
REDACTED	4.6	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
winit-uikit/src/view.rs	5.1	Mixed	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: view.rs ↔ mod.rs
winit-uikit/src/monitor.rs	5.3	Mixed	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: monitor.rs ↔ mod.rs
winit-wayland/src/seat/pointer/mod.rs	5.9	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: WinitState::pointer_frame (cyclomatic 27)
winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
winit-appkit/src/cursor.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
winit-wayland/src/seat/keyboard/mod.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: HackComment
winit-x11/src/window.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
winit-win32/src/keyboard_layout.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: XxxComment
winit-wayland/src/seat/text_input/mod.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: XxxComment
winit-orbital/src/event_loop.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment

How the grades work

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

Critical — 34

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 — 328

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 — 9

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

Could not be resolved — 42

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. 36 of 40 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 — 40 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D11D13D15D16D17D19D21D22D26D28D29D30D34D35D36D43D44AX10AX3AX4AX9ES1ES2M1M2M3M4P1P10P3P4P6PF3

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, 356 of 371 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0ee88-da09-7c1b-83a0-95f9db05c330.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.rs) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
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. Not scored — 6 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, and no committed Cargo.lock resolves them to versions, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D14 License Compliance — 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. Not scored — this repository declares Cargo manifests but commits no Cargo.lock, so the set of crates it actually ships is not resolvable from the checkout: its declarations carry version RANGES, and grading whichever release happens to be newest today would be a verdict about a dependency graph this repository has not pinned. Commit the lock and this dimension grades the closure against crates.io. NOT a finding that this repository's licences are compliant: this dimension asserts nothing about its licensing in either direction.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. A hotspot's complexity is meant to be the worst body its churn actually touched. For winit-x11/src/atoms.rs that could not be established — the complexity reader for the file reports no body extents, or the history carries no per-line attribution — so the row quotes the file's worst body, which the counted changes may never have touched. The churn count is unaffected.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — 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 scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) (npm) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; osv was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that osv is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — 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 scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) (npm) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; osv was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that osv is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registrations in C# and Spring beans in Java/Kotlin only, and no container it models, or knows cannot hold a captive, was found in this repository's source, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, or a Dockerfile. None was found, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# and Python syntax only, and no C# or Python was loaded for this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
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").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (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.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

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

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity5.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

27 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was winit_win32::keyboard::physicalkey_to_scancode at 160. A further 17 function(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 winit_android::keycodes::to_logical at 292 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 5 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: winit-android/src/keycodes.rs (winit_android::keycodes::to_logical at 292), winit-common/src/xkb/keymap.rs (winit_common::xkb::keymap::keysym_to_key at 199), winit-appkit/src/event.rs (winit_appkit::event::physicalkey_to_scancode at 123), winit-x11/src/atoms.rs (AtomName::atom_from at 90), winit-wayland/src/window/state/frame.rs (WindowState::frame_click 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.

EventLoop::handle_input_event (cyclomatic 28) · ×4winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:317

winit_win32::keyboard::physicalkey_to_scancode (cyclomatic 160) · ×3winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs:897

winit_appkit::cursor::cursor_from_icon (cyclomatic 48) · ×2winit-appkit/src/cursor.rs:234

EventProcessor::process_xevent (cyclomatic 39) · ×2winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs:147

WinitState::event (cyclomatic 34) · ×2winit-wayland/src/seat/keyboard/mod.rs:23

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

What to do

Resolve the 4 EventLoop finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with event_loop.rs (3), mod.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 winit_win32 finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with event_loop.rs (2), keyboard.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 winit_appkit finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with cursor.rs, window_delegate.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

43 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was winit_win32::event_loop::public_window_callback_inner at 261.

EventLoop::single_iteration (cognitive 41) · ×5winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:356

EventProcessor::process_xevent (cognitive 36) · ×5winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs:147

winit_win32::event_loop::public_window_callback_inner (cognitive 261) · ×3winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1202

winit_appkit::cursor::cursor_from_icon (cognitive 49) · ×3winit-appkit/src/cursor.rs:234

WinitState::event (cognitive 49) · ×3winit-wayland/src/seat/keyboard/mod.rs:23

+ 19 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 5 EventLoop finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with event_loop.rs (3), mod.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 EventProcessor finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with event_processor.rs (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 winit_win32 finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with event_loop.rs (2), dpi.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").

Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

FileTooLong: src/event_loop.rs · ×22winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs

MethodTooLong: UnownedWindow.new · ×17winit-x11/src/window.rs:458

FunctionTooLong: winit_win32::event_loop::public_window_callback_inner · ×15winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1202

TooManyMethods: UnownedWindow · ×11winit-x11/src/window.rs:432

ClassTooLong: UnownedWindow · ×5winit-x11/src/window.rs:432

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

What to do

Resolve the 22 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with event_loop.rs (4), window.rs (4), dnd.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (22 warning-level).
Resolve the 17 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with mod.rs (4), event_loop.rs (3), window_delegate.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (17 warning-level).
Resolve the 15 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with keymap.rs (3), event_loop.rs (2), keycodes.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.6 / 10Stronggated by 51 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

49 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 2 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×8winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:1503

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×6winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:998

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×5winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:365

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×4winit-uikit/src/window.rs:89

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×3winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:580

+ 19 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 8 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with dnd.rs (2), window_delegate.rs, keymap.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with event_loop.rs, window_delegate.rs, event.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with window.rs (2), event_loop.rs, keymap.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 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 · Coupling9.3 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

12 production modules (Cargo), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 2 module(s) off the main sequence.

Off the main sequence: dpi · ×2

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.7 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

3 of 143 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: ActiveEventLoop (LCOM4 4) · ×3winit-appkit/src/event_loop.rs:47

What to do

Resolve the 3 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with event_loop.rs (2), state.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 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.

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

63 test methods: 49 unit, 14 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 63 `#[test]` function(s) across 15 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 3 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). Rust (repository root, 15 test files): measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Top hotspots: winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs (10×155=1550); winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs (13×34=442); winit-orbital/src/event_loop.rs (11×20=220)

Hotspot: winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs · ×9winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1202

What to do

Resolve the 9 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with event_loop.rs (2), mod.rs (2), window_delegate.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 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 Factor9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

3 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is winit-appkit/src/app.rs. Counted over 137 of the 187 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.6 / 10Stronggated by 112 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

112 deducted task-comment markers across 60853 LoC (0.2/KLoC) → score 9.6. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×78winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:234

XxxComment · ×14winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:238

FixmeComment · ×14winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:819

HackComment · ×6winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:964

What to do

Resolve the 78 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with event_loop.rs (15), window.rs (14), dnd.rs (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (78 warning-level).
Resolve the 14 XxxComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with event_loop.rs (5), mod.rs (5), popup.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
Resolve the 14 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with event_loop.rs (3), app.rs (2), event_loop_proxy.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README is excellent: it states what the crate is (winit - Cross-platform window creation and management in Rust), shows Crates.io and Docs.rs badges with links, lists features within/outside scope, contact info, a clear Usage section explaining what winit does and why platform-specific getters are needed, CONTRIBUTING.md guidance, MSRV policy, and ends with license notes. The README is also complete for the dpi/README.md subdirectory (DPI) and appkit directories: each one documents its own directory rather than the repository as a whole but contains no missing overview/installation/contributing sections that would apply to the root level. The winit documentation is strong: a single README for each platform (winit-win32/winit-x11/winit) and the root winit directory all describe their respective directories, not the repository. The root README gives an overview of what the project does, links to crates.io, docs.rs, UNSTABLE docs, CI status, MSRV policy, and contributes a link to CONTRIBUTING.md. There is no architecture or design documentation (the only doc file is ATTRIBUTION.md).

Documentation: no project overview · ×2winit/README.md

What to do

Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

3 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 244 exposed types.

Redundant operations for retrieving data transfer content. `fetch_data_transfer` takes a specific type filter, while `data_transfer` takes only an ID. It is unclear if `data_transfer` returns a generic container or if it is a legacy alias. The naming convention `fetch_` vs direct noun access is inconsistent with other methods like `create_proxy`.

Duplicate methods with identical signatures and likely identical implementation intent. `add_type` and `with_type` are semantically equivalent in builder patterns.

While technically distinct (one converts physical to logical, the other logical to physical), the naming symmetry is broken by the parameter names. `from_physical` takes a `physical` arg, but `from_logical` takes a `logical` arg. However, looking at `LogicalPosition.from_physical` vs `PhysicalPosition.from_logical`, the pattern is consistent. The inconsistency lies in `PixelUnit` which lacks `from_logical`/`from_physical` static constructors entirely, relying on `to_logical`/`to_physical` instance methods. This forces users to use different patterns for `PixelUnit` vs `LogicalUnit`/`PhysicalUnit`.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Redundant operations for retrieving data transfer content.… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicate methods with identical signatures and likely identical… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 While technically distinct (one converts physical to logical, the other… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 12 build units (Cargo) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)8.4 / 10Adequategated by 23 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

23 finding(s): 0 critical, 23 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 22 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 4 file(s) — `winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs` (line 1208), `winit-web/src/cursor.rs` (line 491, lines 611–612, line 613, …), `winit-web/src/monitor.rs` (line 865, line 883, line 899), `winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs` (line 1149) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

What to do

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 22 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 (22 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No known-vulnerable dependencies in the 1 ecosystem(s) that were scanned (npm). Partial dependency scan: 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (npm), and the findings above are real and complete for them. osv was not scanned (osv: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

15 of 137 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is winit-win32/src/raw_input.rs. Counted over 137 of the 187 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned files with no living knowledge

What to do

Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.2 / 10Adequategated by 11 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: output.rs↔mod.rs 75%; util.rs↔view.rs 67%; window.rs↔mod.rs 66%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: output.rs ↔ mod.rs · ×11winit-wayland/src/output.rs

Change coupling: util.rs ↔ view.rs · ×3winit-appkit/src/util.rs

What to do

Resolve the 11 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with mod.rs (3), output.rs (2), window.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 issue-level).
Resolve the 3 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with util.rs, window_target.rs, mod.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

REDACTED

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

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

ES1 · Fold determinism10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether the recovery-replay fold is deterministic — state derived purely from each event's own fields, no clock/random/IO on the replay path.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan (event-sourcing gated): Apply/When folds checked for forbidden tokens (DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random, IO), stripped of comments/strings. Deterministic, hard fact per fold.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ES2 · Immutable events10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether domain events stay immutable (private fields, set once) rather than carrying mutable state.

Method: Roslyn scan (event-sourcing gated): persisted events checked for public setters; immutability verified per property/field. Deterministic, hard fact.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)8.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 1 of 13 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 0.2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

The release job declares an environment, but its protection rules are not visible from the repository — confirm required reviewers are attached, or publish as a draft release so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	80%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	98%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	72%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	79%	Strong	Solid.
Security	77%	Adequate — gated by D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event Sourcing	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Performance	100%	Exemplary	Solid.

Unscored — 1 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.

SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

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

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

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

Not included — 76 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: Rust's compiler refuses unsynchronised shared mutation — a value shared across threads must be Sync — so the race this check looks for cannot be written.
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~2645 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 6 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, and no committed Cargo.lock resolves them to versions, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D14 License Compliance — Crate licences not graded — this Cargo repository commits no Cargo.lock
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 80 value object(s); 6 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P2 Observability — This repository's Rust, JavaScript/TypeScript source (13 module(s), 188 file(s) read) declares no entry point and bootstraps no server, and nothing here deploys a service — it is a library, run inside whatever hosts it, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. If it grows a binary or a service, the dimension reactivates.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JavaScript/TypeScript, Rust source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `#[bench]`, criterion's `bench_function`/`bench_with_input`, `#[divan::bench]` or `#[library_benchmark]` in any `.rs` file, or criterion, divan, iai or a `[[bench]]` target in a Cargo.toml, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Rust spells out every heap allocation and makes borrowed slices (&[T], &str) its ordinary parameter types, so the allocation-aware style this card rewards elsewhere is the language's baseline rather than a rung to climb.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 34 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

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

D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×11

Boundary-crossing change coupling: output.rs ↔ mod.rs winit-wayland/src/output.rs — `winit-wayland/src/output.rs` (context winit-wayland) and `winit/src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs` (context winit) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 75% of the time (9 of the 12 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) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `ee245c56` api: make VideoModeHandle into VideoMode (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/output.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`); `58142680` Various `Monitor/VideoModeHandle` methods now return an `Option` (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/output.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`); `0ffcfd8a` Remove `MonitorHandle::size/refresh_rate_millihertz()` (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/output.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: window.rs ↔ mod.rs winit-orbital/src/window.rs — `winit-orbital/src/window.rs` (context winit-orbital) and `winit/src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs` (context winit) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 66% of the time (19 of the 29 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) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 19 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `3a60cbab` api: make EventLoopProxy wrap an opaque type (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/orbital/window.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`); `b2896d74` chore: always pull raw-window-handle (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/orbital/window.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`); `02a0a91a` Remove `raw-window-handle` v0.4 and v0.5 support (#3831) (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/orbital/window.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: output.rs ↔ randr.rs winit-wayland/src/output.rs — `winit-wayland/src/output.rs` (context winit-wayland) and `winit-x11/src/util/randr.rs` (context winit-x11) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 58% of the time (7 of the 12 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) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `31423554` winit-core: move monitor handle (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/output.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/x11/util/randr.rs`); `ee245c56` api: make VideoModeHandle into VideoMode (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/output.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/x11/util/randr.rs`); `58142680` Various `Monitor/VideoModeHandle` methods now return an `Option` (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/output.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/x11/util/randr.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: monitor.rs ↔ mod.rs winit-uikit/src/monitor.rs — `winit-uikit/src/monitor.rs` (context winit-uikit) and `winit/src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs` (context winit) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 57% of the time (8 of the 14 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) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `ee245c56` api: make VideoModeHandle into VideoMode (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/apple/uikit/monitor.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`); `58142680` Various `Monitor/VideoModeHandle` methods now return an `Option` (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/apple/uikit/monitor.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`); `0ffcfd8a` Remove `MonitorHandle::size/refresh_rate_millihertz()` (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/apple/uikit/monitor.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: window.rs ↔ mod.rs winit-uikit/src/window.rs — `winit-uikit/src/window.rs` (context winit-uikit) and `winit/src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs` (context winit) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 52% of the time (44 of the 84 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) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 44 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `ee245c56` api: make VideoModeHandle into VideoMode (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/apple/uikit/window.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`); `b2896d74` chore: always pull raw-window-handle (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/apple/uikit/window.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`); `6e1b9fa2` api: replace `WindowId` `From/Into` `u64` with `WindowId::{from,into}… (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/apple/uikit/window.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: mod.rs ↔ mod.rs winit-wayland/src/window/mod.rs — `winit-wayland/src/window/mod.rs` (context winit-wayland) and `winit/src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs` (context winit) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 51% of the time (42 of the 83 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) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 42 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `ee245c56` api: make VideoModeHandle into VideoMode (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/window/mod.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`); `59b1eb54` api: make OwnedDisplayHandle wrap an opaque type (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/window/mod.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`); `b2896d74` chore: always pull raw-window-handle (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/window/mod.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: icon.rs ↔ mod.rs winit-win32/src/icon.rs — `winit-win32/src/icon.rs` (context winit-win32) and `winit/src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs` (context winit) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (8 of the 16 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) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `528fc3e5` Add enum CustomCursorError; `07c25b97` icon: refactor `Icon` to be `dyn` (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/windows/icon.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`); `ae28eea4` cursor: refactor `CustomCursor` to be `dyn` (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/windows/icon.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/mod.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: event_loop.rs ↔ mod.rs winit-android/src/event_loop.rs — `winit-android/src/event_loop.rs` (context winit-android) and `winit-wayland/src/seat/touch/mod.rs` (context winit-wayland) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `6a8a3344` macOS: add `WindowEvent::PointerButton::is_macos_activation_click`; `edfb4b03` chore: remove platform FingerId (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/android/mod.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/seat/touch/mod.rs`); `c8c1eca3` api: move primary from FingerId to Pointer events (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/android/mod.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/seat/touch/mod.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: mod.rs ↔ event_processor.rs winit-wayland/src/seat/touch/mod.rs — `winit-wayland/src/seat/touch/mod.rs` (context winit-wayland) and `winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs` (context winit-x11) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `6a8a3344` macOS: add `WindowEvent::PointerButton::is_macos_activation_click`; `edfb4b03` chore: remove platform FingerId (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/seat/touch/mod.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/x11/event_processor.rs`); `c8c1eca3` api: move primary from FingerId to Pointer events (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/seat/touch/mod.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/x11/event_processor.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: view.rs ↔ mod.rs winit-uikit/src/view.rs — `winit-uikit/src/view.rs` (context winit-uikit) and `winit-wayland/src/seat/touch/mod.rs` (context winit-wayland) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `6a8a3344` macOS: add `WindowEvent::PointerButton::is_macos_activation_click`; `edfb4b03` chore: remove platform FingerId (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/apple/uikit/view.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/seat/touch/mod.rs`); `c8c1eca3` api: move primary from FingerId to Pointer events (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/apple/uikit/view.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/seat/touch/mod.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: mod.rs ↔ event_loop.rs winit-wayland/src/seat/touch/mod.rs — `winit-wayland/src/seat/touch/mod.rs` (context winit-wayland) and `winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs` (context winit-win32) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `6a8a3344` macOS: add `WindowEvent::PointerButton::is_macos_activation_click`; `edfb4b03` chore: remove platform FingerId (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/seat/touch/mod.rs` and `src/platform_impl/windows/event_loop.rs`); `c8c1eca3` api: move primary from FingerId to Pointer events (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/seat/touch/mod.rs` and `src/platform_impl/windows/event_loop.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.

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

REDACTED

Serious — 328 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×78

TodoComment winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:234 — // TODO: This is incorrect - will be solved in https://github.com/rust-windowing/winit/pull/3897
TodoComment winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:244 — // TODO: This is incorrect - will be solved in https://github.com/rust-windowing/winit/pull/3897
TodoComment winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:341 — // TODO mouse events — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:369 — // TODO mouse events — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:384 — // TODO mouse events — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:402 — // TODO mouse events — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:428 — // TODO mouse events — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:445 — // TODO mouse events — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:221 — // TODO: center the cursor if the window had mouse grab when it — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:1666 — // TODO: Do this for real https://stackoverflow.com/a/40922095/5435443
TodoComment winit-appkit/src/view.rs:215 — // this process.}, com.apple.inputmethod.EmojiFunctionRowItem TODO: Add an API — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-appkit/src/view.rs:270 — // TODO: Use _replacement_range, requires changing the event to report surrounding text. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-appkit/src/view.rs:386 — // TODO: Use _replacement_range, requires changing the event to report surrounding text. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-appkit/src/monitor.rs:215 — // TODO: Be smarter about this: — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-appkit/src/lib.rs:66 — // TODO: Remove once `objc2` allows compiling on all platforms — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-uikit/src/lib.rs:101 — // TODO: Remove once `objc2` allows compiling on all platforms — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-appkit/src/ffi.rs:1 — // TODO: Upstream these — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-appkit/src/event_loop.rs:236 — // TODO: Might not be ideal to do this — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-appkit/src/dnd.rs:269 — // TODO: We should probably use `readObjects`, need to check how that works. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-appkit/src/dnd.rs:452 — // TODO: Is there a better way to do this? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-appkit/src/cursor.rs:29 — // TODO(madsmtm): Put this logic in objc2-app-kit itself — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-appkit/src/cursor.rs:179 — // TODO: Handle PLists better — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-appkit/src/cursor.rs:221 — // TODO: Consider using `dataWithBytesNoCopy:` — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-common/src/core_foundation/main_run_loop.rs:100 — // - `NSConnectionReplyMode`: TODO. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit-common/src/xkb/mod.rs:30 — // TODO: Wire this up without using a static `AtomicBool`. — 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.
+ 53 more in this group — see findings.md.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×22

FileTooLong: src/event_loop.rs winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs — FileTooLong — 1678 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1178 over it, 3.36× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/window.rs winit-x11/src/window.rs — FileTooLong — 1527 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 82% of them inside a single declaration: UnownedWindow (2 blocks, 432-2306). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1027 over it, 3.05× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/window_delegate.rs winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs — FileTooLong — 1485 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 81% of them inside a single declaration: WindowDelegate (7 blocks, 146-2530). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 985 over it, 2.97× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/event_processor.rs winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs — FileTooLong — 1153 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 95% of them inside a single declaration: EventProcessor (2 blocks, 54-1891). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 653 over it, 2.31× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/window.rs winit-win32/src/window.rs — FileTooLong — 1135 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 60% of them inside a single declaration: Window (6 blocks, 97-1233). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 635 over it, 2.27× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/dnd.rs winit-win32/src/dnd.rs — FileTooLong — 1013 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 513 over it, 2.03× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/keyboard.rs winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs — FileTooLong — 881 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 381 over it, 1.76× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/event_loop.rs winit-x11/src/event_loop.rs — FileTooLong — 764 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 264 over it, 1.53× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/keyboard_layout.rs winit-win32/src/keyboard_layout.rs — FileTooLong — 743 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 243 over it, 1.49× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: xkb/keymap.rs winit-common/src/xkb/keymap.rs — FileTooLong — 741 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 241 over it, 1.48× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/view.rs winit-appkit/src/view.rs — FileTooLong — 736 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 236 over it, 1.47× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: event_loop/mod.rs winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs — FileTooLong — 656 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 156 over it, 1.31× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/event_loop.rs winit-android/src/event_loop.rs — FileTooLong — 653 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 153 over it, 1.31× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/event_loop.rs winit-orbital/src/event_loop.rs — FileTooLong — 590 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 90 over it, 1.18× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/window.rs winit-core/src/window.rs — FileTooLong — 588 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 88 over it, 1.18× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/monitor.rs winit-web/src/monitor.rs — FileTooLong — 576 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 76 over it, 1.15× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/window.rs winit-uikit/src/window.rs — FileTooLong — 536 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 36 over it, 1.07× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/view.rs winit-uikit/src/view.rs — FileTooLong — 518 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 93% of them inside a single declaration: WinitView (4 blocks, 45-749). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 18 over it, 1.04× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: event_loop/runner.rs winit-web/src/event_loop/runner.rs — FileTooLong — 513 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 75% of them inside a single declaration: Shared (2 blocks, 34-855). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 13 over it, 1.03× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/keycodes.rs winit-android/src/keycodes.rs — FileTooLong — 509 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.02× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/event.rs winit-core/src/event.rs — FileTooLong — 502 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 2 over it, 1.00× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/dnd.rs winit-wayland/src/dnd.rs — FileTooLong — 502 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 2 over it, 1.00× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×17

MethodTooLong: UnownedWindow.new winit-x11/src/window.rs:458 — MethodTooLong — new runs 304 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 204 over it, 3.04× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: ActiveEventLoop.register winit-web/src/event_loop/window_target.rs:71 — MethodTooLong — register runs 245 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 145 over it, 2.45× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: KeyEventBuilder.process_message winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs:76 — MethodTooLong — process_message runs 160 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 60 over it, 1.60× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: EventLoop.new winit-x11/src/event_loop.rs:217 — MethodTooLong — new runs 159 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 59 over it, 1.59× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: WinitState.event winit-wayland/src/seat/keyboard/mod.rs:23 — MethodTooLong — event runs 156 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 56 over it, 1.56× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Popup.new winit-wayland/src/popup.rs:35 — MethodTooLong — new runs 153 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 53 over it, 1.53× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: EventLoop.handle_input_event winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:317 — MethodTooLong — handle_input_event runs 134 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 34 over it, 1.34× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: EventProcessor.client_message winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs:366 — MethodTooLong — client_message runs 133 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 33 over it, 1.33× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: WinitState.pointer_frame winit-wayland/src/seat/pointer/mod.rs:37 — MethodTooLong — pointer_frame runs 131 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 31 over it, 1.31× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: WinitView.handle_touches winit-uikit/src/view.rs:480 — MethodTooLong — handle_touches runs 129 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 29 over it, 1.29× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: EventLoop.single_iteration winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:356 — MethodTooLong — single_iteration runs 123 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 23 over it, 1.23× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Shared.set_listener winit-web/src/event_loop/runner.rs:280 — MethodTooLong — set_listener runs 118 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 18 over it, 1.18× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: TabletToolData.event winit-wayland/src/types/wp_tablet_input_v2.rs:92 — MethodTooLong — event runs 115 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 15 over it, 1.15× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: WindowDelegate.set_fullscreen winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:1837 — MethodTooLong — set_fullscreen runs 110 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 10 over it, 1.10× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: EventLoop.process_event winit-orbital/src/event_loop.rs:358 — MethodTooLong — process_event runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.09× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: WindowDelegate.new winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:934 — MethodTooLong — new runs 106 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 6 over it, 1.06× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Window.new winit-wayland/src/window/mod.rs:57 — MethodTooLong — new runs 101 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1 over it, 1.01× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×15

FunctionTooLong: winit_win32::event_loop::public_window_callback_inner winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1202 — FunctionTooLong — winit_win32::event_loop::public_window_callback_inner runs 824 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 724 over it, 8.24× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: winit_android::keycodes::to_logical winit-android/src/keycodes.rs:238 — FunctionTooLong — winit_android::keycodes::to_logical runs 297 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 197 over it, 2.97× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: winit_win32::keyboard_layout::vkey_to_non_char_key winit-win32/src/keyboard_layout.rs:735 — FunctionTooLong — winit_win32::keyboard_layout::vkey_to_non_char_key runs 209 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 109 over it, 2.09× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: winit_common::xkb::keymap::keysym_to_key winit-common/src/xkb/keymap.rs:504 — FunctionTooLong — winit_common::xkb::keymap::keysym_to_key runs 204 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 104 over it, 2.04× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: winit_win32::keyboard_layout::keycode_to_vkey winit-win32/src/keyboard_layout.rs:519 — FunctionTooLong — winit_win32::keyboard_layout::keycode_to_vkey runs 203 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 103 over it, 2.03× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: winit_common::xkb::keymap::physicalkey_to_scancode winit-common/src/xkb/keymap.rs:302 — FunctionTooLong — winit_common::xkb::keymap::physicalkey_to_scancode runs 194 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 94 over it, 1.94× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: winit_common::xkb::keymap::scancode_to_physicalkey winit-common/src/xkb/keymap.rs:34 — FunctionTooLong — winit_common::xkb::keymap::scancode_to_physicalkey runs 189 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 89 over it, 1.89× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: winit_win32::keyboard::physicalkey_to_scancode winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs:897 — FunctionTooLong — winit_win32::keyboard::physicalkey_to_scancode runs 175 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 75 over it, 1.75× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: winit_win32::keyboard::scancode_to_physicalkey winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs:1093 — FunctionTooLong — winit_win32::keyboard::scancode_to_physicalkey runs 162 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 62 over it, 1.62× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: winit_android::keycodes::to_physical_key winit-android/src/keycodes.rs:7 — FunctionTooLong — winit_android::keycodes::to_physical_key runs 135 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 35 over it, 1.35× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: winit_appkit::window_delegate::new_window winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:683 — FunctionTooLong — winit_appkit::window_delegate::new_window runs 133 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 33 over it, 1.33× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: winit_appkit::event::physicalkey_to_scancode winit-appkit/src/event.rs:348 — FunctionTooLong — winit_appkit::event::physicalkey_to_scancode runs 127 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 27 over it, 1.27× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: winit_appkit::event::scancode_to_physicalkey winit-appkit/src/event.rs:480 — FunctionTooLong — winit_appkit::event::scancode_to_physicalkey runs 124 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 24 over it, 1.24× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: winit_appkit::cursor::cursor_from_icon winit-appkit/src/cursor.rs:234 — FunctionTooLong — winit_appkit::cursor::cursor_from_icon runs 122 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 22 over it, 1.22× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: winit_orbital::event_loop::convert_scancode winit-orbital/src/event_loop.rs:39 — FunctionTooLong — winit_orbital::event_loop::convert_scancode runs 114 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 14 over it, 1.14× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D17 · Explicit Debt · XxxComment · ×14

XxxComment winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:238 — // XXX: how to forward this state to applications? — 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.
XxxComment winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:256 — // XXX: how to forward this state to applications? — 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.
XxxComment winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:239 — // XXX: also how do we expose state restoration to apps? — 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.
XxxComment winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:251 — // XXX: maybe exit mainloop to drop things before being — 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.
XxxComment winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:1546 — // XXX the resize increments are only used during live resizes. — 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.
XxxComment winit-wayland/src/popup.rs:220 — // XXX Wait for the initial configure to arrive. — 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.
XxxComment winit-wayland/src/window/mod.rs:195 — // XXX Wait for the initial configure to arrive. — 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.
XxxComment winit-wayland/src/popup.rs:455 — // XXX clients don't know whether they are minimized or not. — 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.
XxxComment winit-wayland/src/window/mod.rs:376 — // XXX clients don't know whether they are minimized or not. — 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.
XxxComment winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:87 — // XXX drop after everything else, just to be safe. — 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.
XxxComment winit-wayland/src/seat/text_input/mod.rs:95 — // XXX this check is essential, because `leave` could have a — 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.
XxxComment winit-wayland/src/window/mod.rs:171 — // XXX Do initial commit. — 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.
XxxComment winit-x11/src/event_loop.rs:108 — // XXX only update the error, if it wasn't handled by any of the hooks. — 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.
XxxComment winit-x11/src/ime/context.rs:192 — // XXX: this struct doesn't destroy its XIC resource when dropped. — 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×14

FixmeComment winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:819 — // FIXME this ignores the rest of the requested window attributes — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment winit-appkit/src/app.rs:155 — // FIXME(madsmtm): Ensure this always runs (maybe use cargo-nextest or `--test-threads=1`?) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment winit-appkit/src/app.rs:164 — // FIXME(madsmtm): Can't test this yet, need some way to mock AppState. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment winit-common/src/core_foundation/event_loop_proxy.rs:23 — // FIXME(madsmtm): Mark `CFRunLoopSource` + `CFRunLoop` as `Send` + `Sync`. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment winit-common/src/core_foundation/event_loop_proxy.rs:100 — // FIXME(madsmtm): Use this on macOS too. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment winit-core/src/event_loop/pump_events.rs:5 — // FIXME(madsmtm): Fix these. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment winit-uikit/src/monitor.rs:239 — // FIXME: earlier OSs could calculate the refresh rate using — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment winit-win32/src/lib.rs:5 — // FIXME(madsmtm): Allow compiling on all platforms. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs:537 — // FIXME(madsmtm): Is the `chars != " "` check desired here? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:448 — // FIXME(madsmtm): Implement `ActiveEventLoop` for `Rc<EventLoopRunner>` directly. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1142 — // FIXME: detect WM_DWMCOMPOSITIONCHANGED and call DwmEnableBlurBehindWindow if necessary — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment winit-win32/src/event_loop/runner.rs:126 — // FIXME(madsmtm): Coalesce these into a flag (or similar) instead of handling them as events. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment winit-x11/src/window.rs:1120 — // FIXME: this is actually not correct if we're setting the — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment winit/examples/util/fill.rs:14 — // FIXME(madsmtm): This should be done by softbuffer internally in the future: — 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.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×11

TooManyMethods: UnownedWindow winit-x11/src/window.rs:432 — TooManyMethods — 97 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 67 over it, 3.23× 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: WindowDelegate winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:141 — TooManyMethods — 78 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 48 over it, 2.60× 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: WindowState winit-wayland/src/window/state.rs:60 — TooManyMethods — 78 methods, declared across 5 files: window/state.rs (47), state/frame.rs (12), state/cursor.rs (11), state/ime.rs (5), +1 more file(s). The bar is 30 methods; this is 48 over it, 2.60× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. 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: Inner winit-uikit/src/window.rs:114 — TooManyMethods — 70 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 40 over it, 2.33× 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: XConnection winit-x11/src/xdisplay.rs:24 — TooManyMethods — 61 methods, declared across 14 files: src/xdisplay.rs (16), util/geometry.rs (8), util/cursor.rs (7), src/monitor.rs (6), +10 more file(s). The bar is 30 methods; this is 31 over it, 2.03× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. 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: WindowCommon winit-wayland/src/window/common.rs:22 — TooManyMethods — 48 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 18 over it, 1.60× 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: Shared winit-web/src/event_loop/runner.rs:32 — TooManyMethods — 39 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 9 over it, 1.30× 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: EventProcessor winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs:54 — TooManyMethods — 39 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 9 over it, 1.30× 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: WinitView winit-appkit/src/view.rs:153 — TooManyMethods — 35 methods, declared across 2 files: src/view.rs (26), src/view.rs (9). The bar is 30 methods; this is 5 over it, 1.17× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. 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: Canvas winit-web/src/web_sys/canvas.rs:35 — TooManyMethods — 34 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 4 over it, 1.13× 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: AppState winit-appkit/src/app_state.rs:30 — TooManyMethods — 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.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×9

Hotspot: winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1202 — winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs changed 10 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 155 in winit_win32::event_loop::public_window_callback_inner at line 1202. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 8 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 18:01:01 +02:00' --until='2026-09-25 18:01:01 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:683 — winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs changed 13 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 34 in winit_appkit::window_delegate::new_window at line 683. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 18:01:01 +02:00' --until='2026-09-25 18:01:01 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: winit-orbital/src/event_loop.rs winit-orbital/src/event_loop.rs:358 — winit-orbital/src/event_loop.rs changed 11 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 20 in EventLoop::process_event at line 358. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 9 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 18:01:01 +02:00' --until='2026-09-25 18:01:01 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- winit-orbital/src/event_loop.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:356 — winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs changed 9 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 24 in EventLoop::single_iteration at line 356. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 18:01:01 +02:00' --until='2026-09-25 18:01:01 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: winit-x11/src/atoms.rs winit-x11/src/atoms.rs:22 — winit-x11/src/atoms.rs changed 2 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 90 in AtomName::atom_from at line 22. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 18:01:01 +02:00' --until='2026-09-25 18:01:01 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- winit-x11/src/atoms.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: winit-wayland/src/seat/pointer/mod.rs winit-wayland/src/seat/pointer/mod.rs:37 — winit-wayland/src/seat/pointer/mod.rs changed 4 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 27 in WinitState::pointer_frame at line 37. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 18:01:01 +02:00' --until='2026-09-25 18:01:01 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- winit-wayland/src/seat/pointer/mod.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: winit-win32/src/window_state.rs winit-win32/src/window_state.rs:303 — winit-win32/src/window_state.rs changed 4 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 19 in WindowFlags::to_window_styles at line 303. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 3 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 18:01:01 +02:00' --until='2026-09-25 18:01:01 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- winit-win32/src/window_state.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: winit-win32/src/window.rs winit-win32/src/window.rs:1582 — winit-win32/src/window.rs changed 5 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in winit_win32::window::init at line 1582. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 18:01:01 +02:00' --until='2026-09-25 18:01:01 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- winit-win32/src/window.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: winit-wayland/src/types/wp_tablet_input_v2.rs winit-wayland/src/types/wp_tablet_input_v2.rs:92 — winit-wayland/src/types/wp_tablet_input_v2.rs changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 36 in TabletToolData::event at line 92. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 18:01:01 +02:00' --until='2026-09-25 18:01:01 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- winit-wayland/src/types/wp_tablet_input_v2.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:1503 — winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:1503-1511 | winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:1525-1533 — 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) winit-common/src/xkb/keymap.rs:316 — winit-common/src/xkb/keymap.rs:316-324 | winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs:923-931 — before extracting anything, compare `winit-common/src/xkb/keymap.rs` and `winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 31 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) winit-wayland/src/dnd.rs:666 — winit-wayland/src/dnd.rs:666-674 | winit-wayland/src/dnd.rs:738-746 — 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) winit-wayland/src/dnd.rs:722 — winit-wayland/src/dnd.rs:722-730 | winit-wayland/src/dnd.rs:778-786 — 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) winit-wayland/src/seat/pointer/pointer_gesture.rs:98 — winit-wayland/src/seat/pointer/pointer_gesture.rs:98-106 | winit-wayland/src/seat/pointer/pointer_gesture.rs:173-181 — 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) winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1918 — winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1918-1926 | winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1948-1956 — 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) winit-web/src/event_loop/runner.rs:408 — winit-web/src/event_loop/runner.rs:408-416 | winit-web/src/event_loop/runner.rs:426-434 — 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) winit-wayland/src/window/state.rs:311 — winit-wayland/src/window/state.rs:311-319 | winit-wayland/src/window/state.rs:336-344 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D17 · Explicit Debt · HackComment · ×6

HackComment winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:964 — // HACK: How do we get the correct seat for pointers here? — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment winit-wayland/src/seat/keyboard/mod.rs:89 — // HACK: this is just for GNOME not fixing their ordering issue of modifiers. — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment winit-wayland/src/seat/keyboard/mod.rs:245 — // HACK: part of the workaround from `WlKeyboardEvent::Enter`. — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment winit-wayland/src/window/state.rs:263 — // HACK: Currently to get the data device to initiate a drag-and-drop, we iterate through all — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment winit-win32/src/keyboard_layout.rs:394 — // HACK: `ToUnicodeEx` seems to fail getting the string for the numpad — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1269 — // HACK(msiglreith): To add the drop shadow we slightly tweak the non-client area. — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:998 — winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:998-1005 | winit-uikit/src/window.rs:386-393 — 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:1326 — winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:1326-1333 | winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:1345-1352 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) winit-appkit/src/event.rs:432 — winit-appkit/src/event.rs:432-439 | winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs:1008-1015 — 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) winit-uikit/src/app_state.rs:361 — winit-uikit/src/app_state.rs:361-368 | winit-uikit/src/app_state.rs:420-427 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) winit-win32/src/window.rs:563 — winit-win32/src/window.rs:563-570 | winit-win32/src/window.rs:602-609 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) winit-web/src/event_loop/runner.rs:370 — winit-web/src/event_loop/runner.rs:370-377 | winit-web/src/event_loop/runner.rs:389-396 — 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EventLoop · ×5

EventLoop::single_iteration (cognitive 41) winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:356 — EventLoop::single_iteration has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (27 pts), loops 6 (8 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
EventLoop::handle_input_event (cognitive 39) winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:317 — EventLoop::handle_input_event has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 10 (19 pts), if/else 5 (16 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
EventLoop::single_iteration (cognitive 23) winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:173 — EventLoop::single_iteration has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
EventLoop::process_event (cognitive 17) winit-orbital/src/event_loop.rs:358 — EventLoop::process_event has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
EventLoop::poll_events_with_timeout (cognitive 16) winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:255 — EventLoop::poll_events_with_timeout has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EventProcessor · ×5

EventProcessor::process_xevent (cognitive 36) winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs:147 — EventProcessor::process_xevent has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (23 pts), match/switch 5 (11 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
EventProcessor::client_message (cognitive 28) winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs:366 — EventProcessor::client_message has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (26 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
EventProcessor::configure_notify (cognitive 25) winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs:694 — EventProcessor::configure_notify has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (23 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
EventProcessor::xinput_key_input (cognitive 23) winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs:944 — EventProcessor::xinput_key_input has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (21 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
EventProcessor::xkb_event (cognitive 17) winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs:1593 — EventProcessor::xkb_event has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (9 pts), match/switch 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 7). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×5

ClassTooLong: UnownedWindow winit-x11/src/window.rs:432 — ClassTooLong — 1251 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 97 methods, 2 blocks, lines 432-2306. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 851 over it, 3.13× 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.
ClassTooLong: WindowDelegate winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:141 — ClassTooLong — 1205 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 78 methods, 7 blocks, lines 146-2530. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 805 over it, 3.01× 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.
ClassTooLong: EventProcessor winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs:54 — ClassTooLong — 1099 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 39 methods, 2 blocks, lines 54-1891. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 699 over it, 2.75× 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.
ClassTooLong: Window winit-win32/src/window.rs:97 — ClassTooLong — 686 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 23 methods, 6 blocks, lines 97-1233. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 286 over it, 1.72× 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.
ClassTooLong: WindowState winit-wayland/src/window/state.rs:60 — ClassTooLong — 428 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 78 methods, 3 blocks, lines 60-843. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 28 over it, 1.07× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:365 — winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:365-374 | winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:441-450 — 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 (10 lines × 2) winit-common/src/xkb/keymap.rs:373 — winit-common/src/xkb/keymap.rs:373-382 | winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs:1027-1036 — before extracting anything, compare `winit-common/src/xkb/keymap.rs` and `winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 31 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) winit-win32/src/window.rs:714 — winit-win32/src/window.rs:714-723 | winit-win32/src/window.rs:736-745 — 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 (10 lines × 2) winit-appkit/src/window.rs:340 — winit-appkit/src/window.rs:340-349 | winit-uikit/src/window.rs:822-831 — 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.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) winit-android/src/keycodes.rs:257 — winit-android/src/keycodes.rs:257-266 | winit-android/src/keycodes.rs:384-393 — 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EventLoop · ×4

EventLoop::handle_input_event (cyclomatic 28) winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:317 — EventLoop::handle_input_event has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
EventLoop::single_iteration (cyclomatic 27) winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:173 — EventLoop::single_iteration has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
EventLoop::single_iteration (cyclomatic 24) winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:356 — EventLoop::single_iteration has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
EventLoop::process_event (cyclomatic 20) winit-orbital/src/event_loop.rs:358 — EventLoop::process_event has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: winit_orbital::event_loop::convert_scancode (cyclomatic 110) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded function is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) winit-uikit/src/window.rs:89 — winit-uikit/src/window.rs:89-95 | winit-uikit/src/window.rs:314-320 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1916 — winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1916-1922 | winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1977-1983 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1946 — winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1946-1952 | winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:2007-2013 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) winit-web/src/web_sys/mod.rs:89 — winit-web/src/web_sys/mod.rs:89-95 | winit-web/src/web_sys/mod.rs:110-116 — 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · winit_win32 · ×3

winit_win32::keyboard::physicalkey_to_scancode (cyclomatic 160) winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs:897 — winit_win32::keyboard::physicalkey_to_scancode has cyclomatic complexity 160 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
winit_win32::event_loop::public_window_callback_inner (cyclomatic 155) winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1202 — winit_win32::event_loop::public_window_callback_inner has cyclomatic complexity 155 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
winit_win32::event_loop::handle_raw_input (cyclomatic 16) winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:2630 — winit_win32::event_loop::handle_raw_input has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · winit_win32 · ×3

winit_win32::event_loop::public_window_callback_inner (cognitive 261) winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1202 — winit_win32::event_loop::public_window_callback_inner has cognitive complexity 261 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 85 (206 pts), match/switch 15 (38 pts), boolean chains 10, loops 3 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 148). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs holds 2 of the 43 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 259 of the 751 points over it (34%), 4.8× the next-largest file (winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs at 54). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
winit_win32::event_loop::handle_raw_input (cognitive 28) winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:2630 — winit_win32::event_loop::handle_raw_input has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (22 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs holds 2 of the 43 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 259 of the 751 points over it (34%), 4.8× the next-largest file (winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs at 54). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
winit_win32::dpi::hwnd_dpi (cognitive 16) winit-win32/src/dpi.rs:75 — winit_win32::dpi::hwnd_dpi has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · winit_appkit · ×3

winit_appkit::cursor::cursor_from_icon (cognitive 49) winit-appkit/src/cursor.rs:234 — winit_appkit::cursor::cursor_from_icon has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 32 (48 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 16). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
winit_appkit::window_delegate::new_window (cognitive 38) winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:683 — winit_appkit::window_delegate::new_window has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (26 pts), match/switch 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
winit_appkit::event::create_key_event (cognitive 16) winit-appkit/src/event.rs:82 — winit_appkit::event::create_key_event has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (10 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WinitState · ×3

WinitState::event (cognitive 49) winit-wayland/src/seat/keyboard/mod.rs:23 — WinitState::event has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (25 pts), match/switch 14 (23 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 22). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
WinitState::pointer_frame (cognitive 39) winit-wayland/src/seat/pointer/mod.rs:37 — WinitState::pointer_frame has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (19 pts), match/switch 7 (15 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
WinitState::remove_capability (cognitive 18) winit-wayland/src/seat/mod.rs:212 — WinitState::remove_capability has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×3

Change coupling: util.rs ↔ view.rs winit-appkit/src/util.rs — `winit-appkit/src/util.rs` and `winit-appkit/src/view.rs` change together 67% of the time (10 of the 15 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) with no explicit dependency between them. They sit in the same directory, but in this ecosystem each file is its own module — a sibling reference still needs an import — so the missing import edge is real: the coupling runs through shared behaviour, not a declared dependency. If they duplicate structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 10 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `cb39ab29` macOS: Move util::EMPTY_RANGE to usage spot (#3685) (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/macos/util.rs` and `src/platform_impl/macos/view.rs`); `29419d6c` Refactor macOS cursor code (#2463) (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/macos/util/mod.rs` and `src/platform_impl/macos/view.rs`); `6474891f` Fix macOS 32bit (#2327) (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/macos/util/mod.rs` and `src/platform_impl/macos/view.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: window_target.rs ↔ pointer.rs winit-web/src/event_loop/window_target.rs — `winit-web/src/event_loop/window_target.rs` and `winit-web/src/web_sys/pointer.rs` change together 61% of the time (19 of the 31 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) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 19 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `c8c1eca3` api: move primary from FingerId to Pointer events (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/web/event_loop/window_target.rs` and `src/platform_impl/web/web_sys/pointer.rs`); `4e3165f3` chore: remove platform DeviceId (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/web/event_loop/window_target.rs` and `src/platform_impl/web/web_sys/pointer.rs`); `eccd9e41` api: overhaul pointer API (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/web/event_loop/window_target.rs` and `src/platform_impl/web/web_sys/pointer.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: mod.rs ↔ mod.rs winit-wayland/src/seat/pointer/mod.rs — `winit-wayland/src/seat/pointer/mod.rs` and `winit-wayland/src/seat/touch/mod.rs` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `6a8a3344` macOS: add `WindowEvent::PointerButton::is_macos_activation_click`; `a9e7bef8` wayland: Update `sctk` to 0.21; `c8c1eca3` api: move primary from FingerId to Pointer events (at that commit the files were still `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/seat/pointer/mod.rs` and `src/platform_impl/linux/wayland/seat/touch/mod.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:580 — winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:580-591 | winit-x11/src/event_loop.rs:527-538 — 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.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) winit-common/src/xkb/keymap.rs:468 — winit-common/src/xkb/keymap.rs:468-479 | winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs:1039-1050 — before extracting anything, compare `winit-common/src/xkb/keymap.rs` and `winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 31 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1979 — winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:1979-1990 | winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:2009-2020 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) winit-web/src/web_sys/schedule.rs:125 — winit-web/src/web_sys/schedule.rs:125-129 | winit-web/src/web_sys/schedule.rs:182-190 — 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 (5 lines × 2) winit-appkit/src/window.rs:334 — winit-appkit/src/window.rs:334-338 | winit-uikit/src/window.rs:816-820 — 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.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) winit-appkit/src/window.rs:351 — winit-appkit/src/window.rs:351-355 | winit-uikit/src/window.rs:833-837 — 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.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×3

Low cohesion: ActiveEventLoop (LCOM4 4) winit-appkit/src/event_loop.rs:47 — ActiveEventLoop's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: WinitState (LCOM4 4) winit-wayland/src/state.rs:46 — WinitState's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: ActiveEventLoop (LCOM4 4) winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:443 — ActiveEventLoop's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · winit_appkit · ×2

winit_appkit::cursor::cursor_from_icon (cyclomatic 48) winit-appkit/src/cursor.rs:234 — winit_appkit::cursor::cursor_from_icon has cyclomatic complexity 48 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
winit_appkit::window_delegate::new_window (cyclomatic 34) winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:683 — winit_appkit::window_delegate::new_window has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EventProcessor · ×2

EventProcessor::process_xevent (cyclomatic 39) winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs:147 — EventProcessor::process_xevent has cyclomatic complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
EventProcessor::client_message (cyclomatic 17) winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs:366 — EventProcessor::client_message has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WinitState · ×2

WinitState::event (cyclomatic 34) winit-wayland/src/seat/keyboard/mod.rs:23 — WinitState::event has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
WinitState::pointer_frame (cyclomatic 27) winit-wayland/src/seat/pointer/mod.rs:37 — WinitState::pointer_frame has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WindowDelegate · ×2

WindowDelegate::set_fullscreen (cyclomatic 23) winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:1837 — WindowDelegate::set_fullscreen has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
WindowDelegate::new (cyclomatic 19) winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:934 — WindowDelegate::new has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WindowFlags · ×2

WindowFlags::apply_diff (cyclomatic 21) winit-win32/src/window_state.rs:383 — WindowFlags::apply_diff has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
WindowFlags::to_window_styles (cyclomatic 19) winit-win32/src/window_state.rs:303 — WindowFlags::to_window_styles has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · KeyEventBuilder · ×2

KeyEventBuilder::process_message (cognitive 54) winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs:76 — KeyEventBuilder::process_message has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (43 pts), match/switch 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 27). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
KeyEventBuilder::synthesize_kbd_state (cognitive 17) winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs:311 — KeyEventBuilder::synthesize_kbd_state has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WinitView · ×2

WinitView::handle_touches (cognitive 53) winit-uikit/src/view.rs:480 — WinitView::handle_touches has cognitive complexity 53 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (43 pts), match/switch 3 (9 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 29). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
WinitView::update_modifiers (cognitive 25) winit-appkit/src/view.rs:1036 — WinitView::update_modifiers has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (22 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WindowDelegate · ×2

WindowDelegate::set_fullscreen (cognitive 28) winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:1837 — WindowDelegate::set_fullscreen has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (21 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
WindowDelegate::new (cognitive 18) winit-appkit/src/window_delegate.rs:934 — WindowDelegate::new has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (13 pts), match/switch 3, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WindowFlags · ×2

WindowFlags::apply_diff (cognitive 27) winit-win32/src/window_state.rs:383 — WindowFlags::apply_diff has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (18 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
WindowFlags::to_window_styles (cognitive 23) winit-win32/src/window_state.rs:303 — WindowFlags::to_window_styles has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (22 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PartialKeyEventInfo · ×2

PartialKeyEventInfo::from_message (cognitive 18) winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs:493 — PartialKeyEventInfo::from_message has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (13 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
PartialKeyEventInfo::finalize (cognitive 16) winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs:586 — PartialKeyEventInfo::finalize has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), match/switch 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyFields · ×2

TooManyFields: WindowState winit-wayland/src/window/state.rs:60 — TooManyFields — 40 stored fields beside 78 methods. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 10 over it, 1.33× the bar. This is width in DATA, not behaviour: every reader that takes the whole type couples to all of its fields, so a change to any one of them is a change every reader has to be checked against. To reduce it, group the fields that are read together by the same callers into a smaller type of their own, and have this one hold that type as a single member — each reader then names only the group it uses.
TooManyFields: WinitState winit-wayland/src/state.rs:46 — TooManyFields — 31 stored fields beside 4 methods. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 1 over it, 1.03× the bar. This is width in DATA, not behaviour: every reader that takes the whole type couples to all of its fields, so a change to any one of them is a change every reader has to be checked against. To reduce it, group the fields that are read together by the same callers into a smaller type of their own, and have this one hold that type as a single member — each reader then names only the group it uses.

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

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) winit-appkit/src/cursor.rs:51 — winit-appkit/src/cursor.rs:51-67 | winit-appkit/src/cursor.rs:83-99 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) winit-web/src/web_sys/event.rs:290 — winit-web/src/web_sys/event.rs:290-306 | winit-web/src/web_sys/event.rs:309-325 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:379 — winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:379-390 | winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:423-435 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) winit-uikit/src/view.rs:565 — winit-uikit/src/view.rs:565-576 | winit-uikit/src/view.rs:624-636 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) winit-web/src/web_sys/pointer.rs:92 — winit-web/src/web_sys/pointer.rs:92-104 | winit-web/src/web_sys/pointer.rs:154-166 — 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 (13 lines × 2) winit-x11/src/ime/context.rs:265 — winit-x11/src/ime/context.rs:265-277 | winit-x11/src/ime/context.rs:325-337 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) winit-web/src/web_sys/pointer.rs:47 — winit-web/src/web_sys/pointer.rs:47-52 | winit-web/src/web_sys/pointer.rs:65-70 — 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) winit-appkit/src/cursor.rs:70 — winit-appkit/src/cursor.rs:70-75 | winit-appkit/src/cursor.rs:101-106 — 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.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×2

Off the main sequence: dpi — dpi: abstractness 0.11, instability 0.00, distance 0.89 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 11 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: winit-common — winit-common: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.25, distance 0.75 — the shape a shared-kernel / building-block library has BY DESIGN — concrete and widely depended-on is what makes it useful, and this dimension does not penalise it (the distance is reported for completeness, not as a defect). Worth a look only if it has grown past one coherent kernel into an everything-bucket.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TabletToolData · ×1

TabletToolData::event (cyclomatic 36) winit-wayland/src/types/wp_tablet_input_v2.rs:92 — TabletToolData::event has cyclomatic complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UnownedWindow · ×1

UnownedWindow::new (cyclomatic 34) winit-x11/src/window.rs:458 — UnownedWindow::new has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · KeyEventBuilder · ×1

KeyEventBuilder::process_message (cyclomatic 29) winit-win32/src/keyboard.rs:76 — KeyEventBuilder::process_message has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: winit_win32::keyboard::scancode_to_physicalkey (cyclomatic 160) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded function is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · LayoutCache · ×1

LayoutCache::prepare_layout (cyclomatic 27) winit-win32/src/keyboard_layout.rs:286 — LayoutCache::prepare_layout has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: winit_win32::keyboard_layout::keycode_to_vkey (cyclomatic 196) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded function is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ContentType · ×1

ContentType::from (cyclomatic 22) winit-wayland/src/seat/text_input/mod.rs:402 — ContentType::from has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TextInputState · ×1

TextInputState::event (cyclomatic 19) winit-wayland/src/seat/text_input/mod.rs:56 — TextInputState::event has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WinitView · ×1

WinitView::handle_touches (cyclomatic 18) winit-uikit/src/view.rs:480 — WinitView::handle_touches has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TabletToolAngle · ×1

TabletToolAngle::tilt (cyclomatic 16) winit-core/src/event.rs:1389 — TabletToolAngle::tilt has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: MouseButton::try_from_u8 (cyclomatic 33) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded function is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WindowState · ×1

WindowState::configure_frame_and_size (cyclomatic 16) winit-wayland/src/window/state/configure.rs:61 — WindowState::configure_frame_and_size has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Shared · ×1

Shared::set_listener (cyclomatic 16) winit-web/src/event_loop/runner.rs:280 — Shared::set_listener has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LayoutCache · ×1

LayoutCache::prepare_layout (cognitive 59) winit-win32/src/keyboard_layout.rs:286 — LayoutCache::prepare_layout has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (40 pts), match/switch 4 (9 pts), loops 5 (7 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 33). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnownedWindow · ×1

UnownedWindow::new (cognitive 39) winit-x11/src/window.rs:458 — UnownedWindow::new has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 27 (32 pts), match/switch 4, loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TabletToolData · ×1

TabletToolData::event (cognitive 28) winit-wayland/src/types/wp_tablet_input_v2.rs:92 — TabletToolData::event has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (16 pts), if/else 3 (10 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Shared · ×1

Shared::set_listener (cognitive 24) winit-web/src/event_loop/runner.rs:280 — Shared::set_listener has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (22 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Device · ×1

Device::new (cognitive 24) winit-x11/src/event_loop.rs:1168 — Device::new has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (16 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TextInputState · ×1

TextInputState::event (cognitive 23) winit-wayland/src/seat/text_input/mod.rs:56 — TextInputState::event has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), match/switch 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 10). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · winit_common · ×1

winit_common::core_foundation::tracing_observers::tracing_observers (cognitive 20) winit-common/src/core_foundation/tracing_observers.rs:19 — winit_common::core_foundation::tracing_observers::tracing_observers has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · winit_uikit · ×1

winit_uikit::app_state::handle_nonuser_events (cognitive 19) winit-uikit/src/app_state.rs:291 — winit_uikit::app_state::handle_nonuser_events has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WindowState · ×1

WindowState::configure_frame_and_size (cognitive 18) winit-wayland/src/window/state/configure.rs:61 — WindowState::configure_frame_and_size has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (9 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CursorHandler · ×1

CursorHandler::set_cursor (cognitive 18) winit-web/src/cursor.rs:200 — CursorHandler::set_cursor has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (13 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 10). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CursorFlags · ×1

CursorFlags::refresh_os_cursor (cognitive 18) winit-win32/src/window_state.rs:549 — CursorFlags::refresh_os_cursor has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TabletToolTilt · ×1

TabletToolTilt::angle (cognitive 16) winit-core/src/event.rs:1296 — TabletToolTilt::angle has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (12 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TabletToolAngle · ×1

TabletToolAngle::tilt (cognitive 16) winit-core/src/event.rs:1389 — TabletToolAngle::tilt has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (11 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SourceDataObjectData · ×1

SourceDataObjectData::GetData (cognitive 16) winit-win32/src/dnd.rs:1247 — SourceDataObjectData::GetData has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (16 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Redundant operations for retrieving data transfer content. `fetch_data_transfer` takes a specific type filter, while `data_transfer` takes only an ID. It is unclear if `data_transfer` returns a generic container or if it is a legacy alias. The naming convention `fetch_` vs direct noun access is inconsistent with other methods like `create_proxy`. · ×1

Redundant operations for retrieving data transfer content. `fetch_data_transfer` takes a specific type filter, while `data_transfer` takes only an ID. It is unclear if `data_transfer` returns a generic container or if it is a legacy alias. The naming convention `fetch_` vs direct noun access is inconsistent with other methods like `create_proxy`. — Remove `data_transfer` and standardize on `fetch_data_transfer` (or `get_data_transfer`) with a consistent signature. If `data_transfer` is meant to be a convenience for 'get all types', rename it to `get_all_data_transfer_types` or similar to clarify intent. (signatures: ActiveEventLoop.fetch_data_transfer(id: DataTransferId, type_: &dyn TransferType): Result | ActiveEventLoop.data_transfer(id: DataTransferId): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Duplicate methods with identical signatures and likely identical implementation intent. `add_type` and `with_type` are semantically equivalent in builder patterns. · ×1

Duplicate methods with identical signatures and likely identical implementation intent. `add_type` and `with_type` are semantically equivalent in builder patterns. — Remove one of the methods (preferably `add_type` if the builder is immutable-like, or `with_type` if it follows standard builder conventions) to reduce API surface and confusion. (signatures: DataTransferSendBuilder.add_type(type_: Ty, func: F): Self | DataTransferSendBuilder.with_type(type_: Ty, func: F): Self)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · While technically distinct (one converts physical to logical, the other logical to physical), the naming symmetry is broken by the parameter names. `from_physical` takes a `physical` arg, but `from_logical` takes a `logical` arg. However, looking at `LogicalPosition.from_physical` vs `PhysicalPosition.from_logical`, the pattern is consistent. The inconsistency lies in `PixelUnit` which lacks `from_logical`/`from_physical` static constructors entirely, relying on `to_logical`/`to_physical` instance methods. This forces users to use different patterns for `PixelUnit` vs `LogicalUnit`/`PhysicalUnit`. · ×1

While technically distinct (one converts physical to logical, the other logical to physical), the naming symmetry is broken by the parameter names. `from_physical` takes a `physical` arg, but `from_logical` takes a `logical` arg. However, looking at `LogicalPosition.from_physical` vs `PhysicalPosition.from_logical`, the pattern is consistent. The inconsistency lies in `PixelUnit` which lacks `from_logical`/`from_physical` static constructors entirely, relying on `to_logical`/`to_physical` instance methods. This forces users to use different patterns for `PixelUnit` vs `LogicalUnit`/`PhysicalUnit`. — Add `PixelUnit.from_logical` and `PixelUnit.from_physical` static constructors to match the pattern established by `LogicalUnit` and `PhysicalUnit`, or remove the static constructors from the latter to unify on instance methods. Given `Pixel` is a primitive, the static constructors on `LogicalUnit` are likely the outlier. (signatures: LogicalUnit.from_physical(physical: T, scale_factor: f64): Self | PhysicalUnit.from_logical(logical: T, scale_factor: f64): Self)

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) winit-win32/src/window.rs:498 — winit-win32/src/window.rs:498-507 | winit-win32/src/window.rs:511-520 | winit-win32/src/window.rs:643-653 | winit-win32/src/window.rs:660-672 | winit-win32/src/window.rs:841-851 | winit-win32/src/window.rs:1023-1033 | winit-win32/src/window.rs:1040-1051 — These 7 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.

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

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:517 — winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:517-532 | winit-orbital/src/event_loop.rs:526-554 | winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:188-211 | winit-x11/src/event_loop.rs:455-482 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

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

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) winit-core/src/keyboard.rs:40 — winit-core/src/keyboard.rs:40-60 | winit-core/src/keyboard.rs:103-123 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20–21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (20–21 lines × 2) winit-wayland/src/popup.rs:203 — winit-wayland/src/popup.rs:203-222 | winit-wayland/src/window/mod.rs:177-197 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 2) winit-wayland/src/state.rs:317 — winit-wayland/src/state.rs:317-335 | winit-wayland/src/state.rs:360-377 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:218 — winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:218-235 | winit-x11/src/event_loop.rs:489-505 — before extracting anything, compare `winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs` and `winit-x11/src/event_loop.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:293 — winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:293-310 | winit-x11/src/event_loop.rs:545-562 — before extracting anything, compare `winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs` and `winit-x11/src/event_loop.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:456 — winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:456-469 | winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:471-484 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 2) winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs:1610 — winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs:1610-1623 | winit-x11/src/event_processor.rs:1626-1637 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 4) winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:519 — winit-android/src/event_loop.rs:519-531 | winit-orbital/src/event_loop.rs:529-539 | winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs:191-201 | winit-x11/src/event_loop.rs:458-468 — before extracting anything, compare `winit-wayland/src/event_loop/mod.rs` and `winit-x11/src/event_loop.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) winit-web/src/web_sys/canvas.rs:299 — winit-web/src/web_sys/canvas.rs:299-309 | winit-web/src/web_sys/canvas.rs:322-332 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) winit-win32/src/window.rs:499 — winit-win32/src/window.rs:499-503 | winit-win32/src/window.rs:512-516 | winit-win32/src/window.rs:644-649 | winit-win32/src/window.rs:661-666 | winit-win32/src/window.rs:842-847 | winit-win32/src/window.rs:1024-1029 | winit-win32/src/window.rs:1041-1046 — all 7 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) winit-appkit/src/dnd.rs:81 — winit-appkit/src/dnd.rs:81-88 | winit-wayland/src/dnd.rs:349-356 | winit-x11/src/dnd.rs:219-226 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) winit-appkit/src/event_loop.rs:89 — winit-appkit/src/event_loop.rs:89-95 | winit-win32/src/event_loop.rs:478-484 | winit-win32/src/window.rs:1057-1063 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.

SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene · JavaScript dependencies are not locked · ×1

JavaScript dependencies are not locked — No package-lock.json / yarn.lock / pnpm-lock.yaml / bun.lock — JS installs aren't reproducible (SSDF PW.4.4). Commit your package manager's lockfile and install from it (`npm ci`, `yarn --immutable`, `pnpm i --frozen-lockfile` or `bun i --frozen-lockfile`). Advisory — never scored.

Minor — 9 finding(s)

D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×2

Documentation: no project overview winit/README.md — The README states the project's purpose but does not explain what winit itself does beyond 'a window creation and management library' with a one-line description. Expand on what winit provides: its API surface, notable features (e.g. platform-specific getters), and how it fits into the Rust GUI ecosystem.
Documentation: no usage examples winit/README.md — Usage is sketched but there are no runnable examples showing how to create a window or handle events. Add a usage example: write a minimal program that creates a window and prints its size.

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 3 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: winit-appkit/src/app.rs, winit-common/src/core_foundation/main_run_loop.rs, winit-appkit/src/ffi.rs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

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

Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 15 of 137 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 137 of the 187 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: winit-win32/src/raw_input.rs, winit-x11/src/util/geometry.rs, winit-web/src/web_sys/schedule.rs, winit-web/src/web_sys/resize_scaling.rs, winit-x11/src/xsettings.rs, winit-x11/src/util/window_property.rs, winit-x11/src/util/modifiers.rs, winit-x11/src/util/wm.rs (and 7 more). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-97039ba7e5054e5f8078f853ae22b1d6/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-97039ba7e5054e5f8078f853ae22b1d6/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	23	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	0	—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a0ee88-da09-7c1b-83a0-95f9db05c330 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Rust-Windowing/winit

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 80% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 98% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 72% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 79% · Strong ·

At a glance — Security · 77% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 100% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts