Executive summary
This system is a small, low-cost asset with a fragile operational foundation. While the underlying architecture is robust, the overall health score of 41% signals that the team is carrying significant risk in how the software is delivered and secured. The value tied up here is modest, with a rebuild cost of roughly €6,900, but the annual drag on the nearly 100,000 lines of code the team touches is substantial. The primary danger is not the size of the system, but the lack of safeguards that allow errors and security flaws to slip into production unchecked.
The most critical issue is operational fragility. With a readiness score of 32%, the system lacks the automated testing and security gates necessary for safe, rapid deployment. This creates a high risk of outages and security regressions, as there are no automated checks to catch defects before they reach users. The cost of this neglect is a recurring tax on every change, slowing delivery and increasing the likelihood of costly hotfixes. Addressing this gap is the highest-leverage move, as it protects the entire system with minimal effort.
A secondary concern is the velocity tax imposed by code quality. Although the architecture is sound, the code itself suffers from complexity and duplication, averaging a mediocre quality rating. This acts as a hidden tax on every modification, plausibly increasing effort by 4–9% compared to clean code. Over time, this compounds, making routine updates slower and more expensive. The lack of automated tests further exacerbates this, as developers must manually verify changes, adding to the delay and risk of regression.
On the positive side, the architecture is well-designed and the security posture is reasonably strong, with a score of 73%. The system is small and easy to understand, with no significant boilerplate or complex logic that would hinder maintenance. The domain modeling and event-driven aspects were not measured, so their impact remains unknown, but the current structure is manageable. The team should focus first on adding a static analysis step to the continuous integration pipeline. This single action will catch security and quality issues early, paying for itself within months by reducing the annual drag on development. Once this gate is in place, the team can systematically improve code quality and add tests, securing the system’s long-term viability.
Raise Readiness 32 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 41 → ~48.
New since the last scan (100+)
- D1 · ready (cyclomatic 45) REDACTED
- D1 · Listeners.handleKey (cyclomatic 41) src/js/listeners.js
- D1 · Listeners.controls (cyclomatic 39) src/js/listeners.js
- D1 · Plyr.constructor (cyclomatic 39) src/js/plyr.js
- D1 · create (cyclomatic 34) src/js/controls.js
- D1 · ready (cyclomatic 28) src/js/plugins/vimeo.js
- D1 · setup (cyclomatic 27) src/js/captions.js
- D1 · change (cyclomatic 24) src/js/source.js
- D1 · Listeners.container (cyclomatic 20) src/js/listeners.js
- D1 · inject (cyclomatic 19) src/js/controls.js
- D1 · Listeners.media (cyclomatic 16) src/js/listeners.js
- D1 · createButton (cyclomatic 16) src/js/controls.js
- D2 · constructor (cognitive 56) src/js/plyr.js
- D2 · ready (cognitive 50) REDACTED
- D2 · Listeners.controls (cognitive 41) src/js/listeners.js
- D2 · create (cognitive 39) src/js/controls.js
- D2 · Listeners.handleKey (cognitive 35) src/js/listeners.js
- D2 · change (cognitive 32) src/js/source.js
- D2 · ready (cognitive 29) src/js/plugins/vimeo.js
- D2 · setup (cognitive 28) src/js/captions.js
- D2 · inject (cognitive 24) src/js/controls.js
- D2 · bindMenuItemShortcuts (cognitive 22) src/js/controls.js
- D2 · loadSprite (cognitive 21) src/js/utils/load-sprite.js
- D2 · Listeners.media (cognitive 18) src/js/listeners.js
- D2 · Listeners.container (cognitive 17) src/js/listeners.js
- D2 · Plyr.destroy (cognitive 17) src/js/plyr.js
- D2 · container::setGutter (cognitive 16) src/js/listeners.js
- D2 · updateSetting (cognitive 16) src/js/controls.js
- D3 · MethodTooLong: Listeners.controls src/js/listeners.js
- D3 · MethodTooLong: Plyr.constructor src/js/plyr.js
- D3 · ClassTooLong: Plyr src/js/plyr.js
- D3 · ClassTooLong: Listeners src/js/listeners.js
- D3 · FileTooLong: js/plyr.js src/js/plyr.js
- D12 · Floating npm dependency: @videojs/mux-video
- D12 · Floating npm dependency: @videojs/react
- D15 · Hotspot: src/js/listeners.js src/js/listeners.js
- D15 · Hotspot: src/js/plyr.js src/js/plyr.js
- D15 · Hotspot: src/js/captions.js src/js/captions.js
- D28 · REDACTED
- D28 · REDACTED
- D28 · REDACTED
- D28 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D36 · REDACTED
- D36 · REDACTED
- R10 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) src/js/plugins/vimeo.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) src/js/controls.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) src/js/fullscreen.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) src/js/plugins/vimeo.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) src/js/listeners.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) src/js/controls.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) src/js/listeners.js
- R2 · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 29, cognitive 33) src/js/controls.js
- R2 · Complex function setup (cyclomatic 23, cognitive 22) src/js/captions.js
- R2 · Complex function ready (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 20) REDACTED
- R2 · Complex function createButton (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 17) src/js/controls.js
- R2 · Complex function onStateChange (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 15) REDACTED
- R2 · Complex function updateSeekTooltip (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 13) src/js/controls.js
- R2 · Complex function updateSetting (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 16) src/js/controls.js
- R2 · Complex function volume (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 11) src/js/plyr.js
- R2 · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 21) src/js/controls.js
- R2 · Complex function toggleFallback (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 15) src/js/fullscreen.js
- R2 · Complex function exit (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 13) src/js/fullscreen.js
- R2 · Complex function ready (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 12) src/js/plugins/vimeo.js
- R2 · Complex function build (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 11) src/js/ui.js
- R2 · Complex function update (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 10) src/js/captions.js
- R2 · Complex function durationUpdate (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 10) src/js/controls.js
- R4 · Test Coverage
- R6 · No test script
- R7 · Dead file (~1852 LoC) src/js/controls.js
- R7 · Dead file (~1288 LoC) src/js/plyr.js
- R7 · Dead file (~880 LoC) src/js/listeners.js
- R7 · Dead file (~696 LoC) src/js/plugins/preview-thumbnails.js
- R7 · Dead file (~645 LoC) src/js/plugins/ads.js
- R7 · Dead file (~448 LoC) REDACTED
- R7 · Dead file (~440 LoC) src/js/plugins/vimeo.js
- R7 · Dead file (~426 LoC) src/js/captions.js
- R7 · Dead file (~296 LoC) src/js/ui.js
- R7 · Dead file (~293 LoC) src/js/fullscreen.js
- R7 · Dead file (~261 LoC) src/js/utils/elements.js
- R7 · Dead file (~154 LoC) src/js/source.js
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €2,300–€12,000
| Cost to rebuild | €2,300–€12,000 |
|---|---|
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 41% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€6,900 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 32% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 20 | REDACTED / Critical |
| A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures | 9 | REDACTED / Critical |
Roadmap
First, integrate static security analysis into the CI pipeline to prevent regressions from reaching production. Next, eliminate dead code and migrate remaining JavaScript files to TypeScript to reduce maintenance overhead and improve type safety. Finally, increase test coverage for unreached modules and split large files into smaller, focused units to enhance maintainability and code quality.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. | +8.9 pts | Low | Code Coverage |
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +8.9 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. | +10.0 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry). | +10.0 pts | Medium | Test Coverage |
| Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript. | +9.8 pts | Medium | Type Safety |
| Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value. | +9.8 pts | Medium | Dead Code |
| Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package. | +9.4 pts | Medium | Large Files |
| Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5. | +8.3 pts | Medium | Cyclomatic Complexity |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 4.4 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 4.6 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 5.0 | Mixed | Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| src/js/listeners.js | 7.0 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: Listeners.handleKey (cyclomatic 41) |
| src/js/controls.js | 7.0 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: create (cyclomatic 34) |
| src/js/plyr.js | 7.1 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: Plyr.constructor (cyclomatic 39) |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Mixed | Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Mixed | Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Mixed | Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Mixed | Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Mixed | Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Mixed | Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Mixed | Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| src/js/plugins/vimeo.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: ready (cyclomatic 28) |
| src/js/captions.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: setup (cyclomatic 27) |
| src/js/source.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: change (cyclomatic 24) |
| src/js/utils/load-sprite.js | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: loadSprite (cognitive 21) |
| README.md | 9.1 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Documentation: no installation or build instructions |
How the grades work
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.
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.
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 38 of 41 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 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.
What we checked — 41 dimensions across the health lenses
- 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, 137 of 158 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- 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.
Tools & methods
| 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 |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: D22 has no public-API collector for any other ecosystem, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
- AC1 Text alternatives — 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 repository builds its DOM through a hyperscript-style factory — 31 call(s) across 1 script file(s) — which the static markup model cannot read, so none of those elements entered the population the accessibility cards score. That is a gap in this analyzer's frontend coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — 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 repository builds its DOM through a hyperscript-style factory — 31 call(s) across 1 script file(s) — which the static markup model cannot read, so none of those elements entered the population the accessibility cards score. That is a gap in this analyzer's frontend coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — 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 repository builds its DOM through a hyperscript-style factory — 31 call(s) across 1 script file(s) — which the static markup model cannot read, so none of those elements entered the population the accessibility cards score. That is a gap in this analyzer's frontend coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — 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 repository builds its DOM through a hyperscript-style factory — 31 call(s) across 1 script file(s) — which the static markup model cannot read, so none of those elements entered the population the accessibility cards score. That is a gap in this analyzer's frontend coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- AC5 ARIA 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 repository builds its DOM through a hyperscript-style factory — 31 call(s) across 1 script file(s) — which the static markup model cannot read, so none of those elements entered the population the accessibility cards score. That is a gap in this analyzer's frontend coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — 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 repository builds its DOM through a hyperscript-style factory — 31 call(s) across 1 script file(s) — which the static markup model cannot read, so none of those elements entered the population the accessibility cards score. That is a gap in this analyzer's frontend coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — 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 repository builds its DOM through a hyperscript-style factory — 31 call(s) across 1 script file(s) — which the static markup model cannot read, so none of those elements entered the population the accessibility cards score. That is a gap in this analyzer's frontend coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — 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 which project references which — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- AX4 Dependency direction — 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 direction each project reference points — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's 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.
- AX8 Test isolation — 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 which projects are test projects, and what they reference — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
- C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
- C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
- C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
- DM1 Aggregate boundaries — 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 for TypeScript: a class holding another class reads the same whether the inner type is an aggregate or a value object, so this cannot be decided from source without guessing — reported as guidance rather than measured.
- DM2 Strongly-typed ids — 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 for TypeScript: branded ids (`type Id = string & { __brand }`) are an uncommon idiom, so a bare-string id is not on its own evidence of a missing typed id — reported as guidance rather than measured.
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored for TypeScript: a domain type used across packages is indistinguishable in source from a deliberate shared-kernel package, so this is reported as guidance rather than measured.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model — 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 for TypeScript: telling a rich domain entity from an anemic data holder needs the behaviour a source-only read cannot always attribute (components, DTOs and readonly value objects are all legitimately data-shaped), so this is reported as guidance rather than measured.
- DM5 Encapsulated 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. Not scored for TypeScript: the language already steers state behind #private/private/readonly, so a mutable public field is rare enough that we report this as guidance rather than measuring it.
- DM7 Repository granularity — 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 for TypeScript: deciding whether a repository belongs to an aggregate root needs the aggregate structure, which source alone does not state — reported as guidance rather than measured.
- 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.
- P1 CI/CD gates — 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 CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Which of the two it is cannot be settled from this dimension's evidence; the coverage dimensions report whether a suite exists at all. You can widen what we reach: name the test runner explicitly in the pipeline step (your stack's test command, or a job named for the suite) so the gate is unambiguous to a reader and to this pass.
- 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 none applies: this repository publishes a library and deploys nothing (no container, IaC or deployment manifest), so it holds no runtime state of its own. Any data-access dependency it declares is the store it is a CLIENT for, not one it operates. The DR control belongs to whoever runs that data.
- 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.
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
- 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.
- D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
- 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.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- 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.
- 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
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
18 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ready at 45.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 ready (cyclomatic 45) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Listeners.handleKey (cyclomatic 41) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with listeners.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Listeners.controls (cyclomatic 39) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with listeners.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
24 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was constructor at 56.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 constructor (cognitive 56) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 ready (cognitive 50) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Listeners.controls (cognitive 41) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with listeners.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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.
D3 · God Classes
5 god class(es) detected.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with listeners.js, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with REDACTED, listeners.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D8 · Code Coverage
No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
D9 · Test Distribution
No test suite found.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated direct production npm dependency(ies) of 9 graded, 2 pinning defect(s), across 2 package.json (2 of them the product) and 2 committed lockfile(s). Development dependencies are deliberately not graded: this dimension grades what SHIPS. Whether any of these packages is DEPRECATED or UNMAINTAINED is not graded — registry.npmjs.org's latest-version answer carries neither, and release age does not stand in for a maintenance status. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: that is a source question, and the frontend dependency lens (R8) answers it in this same run. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from the manifest there.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Floating npm dependency finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
D13 · REDACTED Scanning
REDACTED scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 9 shipped npm package(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from registry.npmjs.org over the 9 production dependency(ies) this repository's committed lockfile resolves, across 2 product package.json manifest(s). Its 28 `devDependencies` declaration(s) are excluded: a consumer installs none of them. ★ DEPTH: this is the DIRECT production set the lockfile resolves, NOT the transitive closure — only one of the four lock dialects this pass reads states a full graph, so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is outside this verdict, exactly as the JVM arm's declaration-site verdict is. ★ Each licence is the one the registry publishes for the package's CURRENT release rather than for the pinned version, which is the same caveat the Hex and RubyGems arms carry. This repository publishes itself under MIT, which is its own choice and is not judged here.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
Top hotspots: src/js/listeners.js (2×41=82); src/js/plyr.js (2×39=78); src/js/captions.js (2×23=46)
What to do
- Resolve the 3 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with listeners.js, REDACTED, captions.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
D16 · Bus Factor
No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author. Counted over 20 of the 42 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted task-comment markers across 322 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. 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.
D19 · Documentation Quality
Plyr's README is a strong feature-rich landing page with an excellent one-line 'meet Video.js' hook, branding, and links to npm, Gitpod, and Mux. It describes the player as simple, lightweight, accessible, customizable, responsive, monetizable, streaming-capable, API-standardized, event-driven, fullscreen-ready, shortcut-supporting, and well-structured for HTML5 video/audio with YouTube/Vimeo support. The body is long (7646 words) but clipped mid-sentence; the visible content gives a clear overview plus an outline of features and sections to follow.
What to do
- Resolve the 3 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
D28 · Secrets (history)
8 finding(s): 0 critical, 8 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
What to do
- Resolve the 8 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
20 finding(s): 0 critical, 20 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 17 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.
What to do
- Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) charged to Static Analysis (SAST) — the other 17 are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which charges them once. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (20 issue-level, 3 of them charged here).
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable dependencies in any ecosystem this repository declares.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 20 of the 42 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
1/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
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).
D43 · Malicious Dependencies
No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 4 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, 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.
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
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.
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- 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 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation
- 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.
- No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
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).
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure
- No test surface was found — this check walked the tree for authored source in the languages it models (`.cs`, `.vb`, `.fs`, `.java`, `.kt`, `.scala`, `.py`, `.php`, `.rb`, `.ex`, `.exs`, `.go`, `.erl`, `.hrl`, `.swift`, `.dart`, `.rs`, `.ts`, `.tsx`, `.mts`, `.cts`) and found none of it test-shaped. ★ `.js`, `.jsx`, `.mjs` and `.cjs` are NOT in that walk, so a Jest or Mocha suite written in plain JavaScript is invisible to it and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than moving anything. Otherwise there are no tests here to separate from production code, so the folder question hasn't been reached yet.
What to do
- Start a test surface where your build system looks for one (tests/, test/, spec/, or your ecosystem's test source set) — the separation follows from putting the first tests in the right place.
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists — searched for: `dockerfile`, `docker-compose`, `compose.yaml`, `compose.yml`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists.
P1 · CI/CD gates
What to do
- Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (`pnpm test` for the toolchain this pipeline already uses) and gate merges on it.
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 7147 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
- Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
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.
P6 · Release Hygiene
R1 · Type Safety
- 3 typed · 38 plain JS — the untyped files are src/js/captions.js, src/js/config/defaults.js, src/js/config/states.js, src/js/config/types.js, src/js/console.js, src/js/controls.js (+32 more).
What to do
- Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
R10 · Code Duplication
- src/js/plugins/vimeo.js:254 · src/js/plugins/vimeo.js:270 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/js/plugins/vimeo.js:254
- src/js/controls.js:954 · src/js/controls.js:1053 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/js/controls.js:954
- src/js/fullscreen.js:242 · src/js/fullscreen.js:262 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/js/fullscreen.js:242
- src/js/plugins/vimeo.js:49 · REDACTED:28 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — src/js/plugins/vimeo.js:49
- src/js/listeners.js:723 · src/js/listeners.js:742 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/js/listeners.js:723
- src/js/controls.js:915 · src/js/controls.js:1072 — 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. — src/js/controls.js:915
- src/js/listeners.js:340 · src/js/listeners.js:365 — 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. — src/js/listeners.js:340
What to do
- Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- handleKey has cyclomatic complexity 41 and cognitive complexity 35; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/listeners.js:44
- constructor has cyclomatic complexity 38 and cognitive complexity 55; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/plyr.js:41
- (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 29 and cognitive complexity 33; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/controls.js:1292
- (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 23 and cognitive complexity 31; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/source.js:41
- setup has cyclomatic complexity 23 and cognitive complexity 22; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/captions.js:27
- ready has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 20; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — REDACTED:106
- inject has cyclomatic complexity 16 and cognitive complexity 18; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/controls.js:1621
- toggleMenu has cyclomatic complexity 16 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/controls.js:1125
- createButton has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 17; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/controls.js:170
- onStateChange has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 15; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — REDACTED:348
- updateSeekTooltip has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/controls.js:687
- updateSetting has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/controls.js:822
- volume has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/plyr.js:533
- (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 21; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/controls.js:406
- toggleFallback has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 15; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/fullscreen.js:158
- exit has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/fullscreen.js:265
- ready has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/plugins/vimeo.js:87
- build has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/ui.js:30
- update has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 10; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/captions.js:124
- durationUpdate has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 10; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/js/controls.js:774
What to do
- Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
R3 · Large Files
- 6 file(s) over 400 lines (counted as significant lines — blank lines excluded — over production source only, tests excluded), largest first: src/js/controls.js (1514), src/js/plyr.js (1073), src/js/listeners.js (733), src/js/plugins/preview-thumbnails.js (573), src/js/plugins/ads.js (530), src/js/config/defaults.js (413).
What to do
- Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
R4 · Test Coverage
- 0% of 39 production file(s) reachable from 0 test file(s) via the import graph — 'production' here is the RESIDUE: every source file left once tests, tooling, generated output, config, declarations and declaration-only modules, fixture corpora, type fixtures, behaviour-free data modules, re-export barrels, registration/constant data modules and service workers are set aside, so the percentage is taken over a smaller denominator than the workspace's file count
What to do
- Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
R6 · Tooling
- test ✗ · lint ✓ · typecheck ✓ — read from this repository's package.json scripts and corroborated against its CI workflows. A script counts when its name or command matches the step: `test` for the suite, `lint` or `prettier` for linting, `typecheck`/`type-check`/`tsc` for type checking. ✗ therefore means no script or CI step under those names was found, NOT that the step is absent from your pipeline — a task invoked by a runner this check does not read, or named something else entirely, is not seen and is worth confirming before acting on a cross. A ✓ means the wiring is DECLARED — a script or CI step under those names exists. It is not a statement that the step passes, or that it runs at all: nothing here installs a dependency or executes a suite.
What to do
- Add a test runner (vitest / jest / playwright) as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
R7 · Dead Code
- Unreachable from the 4 application, 5 tooling and 0 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on `pnpm run build` — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 5 in-repo import(s) from 5 other file(s) do name it (src/js/captions.js, src/js/listeners.js, src/js/plugins/vimeo.js and 2 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/controls.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 1 in-repo import(s) from 1 other file(s) do name it (src/js/plyr.polyfilled.js) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/plyr.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 1 in-repo import(s) from 1 other file(s) do name it (src/js/plyr.js) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it (×6) — src/js/listeners.js, src/js/plugins/ads.js, src/js/fullscreen.js, …
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 2 in-repo import(s) from 2 other file(s) do name it (src/js/plyr.js, src/js/source.js) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it (×3) — src/js/plugins/preview-thumbnails.js, src/js/media.js, src/js/config/types.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 2 in-repo import(s) from 2 other file(s) do name it (src/js/listeners.js, src/js/plyr.js) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/config/defaults.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 1 in-repo import(s) from 1 other file(s) do name it (src/js/media.js) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it (×2) — REDACTED, src/js/plugins/vimeo.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 4 in-repo import(s) from 4 other file(s) do name it (src/js/controls.js, src/js/plugins/vimeo.js, src/js/plyr.js and 1 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/captions.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 5 in-repo import(s) from 5 other file(s) do name it (src/js/listeners.js, src/js/plugins/vimeo.js, REDACTED and 2 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/ui.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 14 in-repo import(s) from 14 other file(s) do name it (src/js/captions.js, src/js/controls.js, src/js/fullscreen.js and 11 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/elements.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 4 in-repo import(s) from 4 other file(s) do name it (src/js/controls.js, src/js/media.js, src/js/plyr.js and 1 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/html5.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 5 in-repo import(s) from 5 other file(s) do name it (src/js/html5.js, src/js/listeners.js, src/js/plugins/vimeo.js and 2 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/style.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 11 in-repo import(s) from 11 other file(s) do name it (src/js/captions.js, src/js/controls.js, src/js/fullscreen.js and 8 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/events.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 6 in-repo import(s) from 6 other file(s) do name it (src/js/captions.js, src/js/controls.js, src/js/html5.js and 3 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/support.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 26 in-repo import(s) from 26 other file(s) do name it (src/js/captions.js, src/js/controls.js, src/js/fullscreen.js and 23 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/is.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 5 in-repo import(s) from 5 other file(s) do name it (src/js/captions.js, src/js/controls.js, src/js/plugins/vimeo.js and 2 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/strings.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 2 in-repo import(s) from 2 other file(s) do name it (src/js/controls.js, src/js/plyr.js) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/load-sprite.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 2 in-repo import(s) from 2 other file(s) do name it (src/js/plyr.js, src/js/utils/load-sprite.js) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/storage.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 4 in-repo import(s) from 4 other file(s) do name it (src/js/captions.js, src/js/controls.js, src/js/plugins/ads.js and 1 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/i18n.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 5 in-repo import(s) from 5 other file(s) do name it (src/js/captions.js, src/js/plugins/preview-thumbnails.js, src/js/plugins/vimeo.js and 2 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/fetch.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 7 in-repo import(s) from 7 other file(s) do name it (src/js/controls.js, REDACTED, src/js/plyr.js and 4 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/objects.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 4 in-repo import(s) from 4 other file(s) do name it (src/js/captions.js, src/js/plugins/ads.js, src/js/plugins/vimeo.js and 1 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/urls.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 3 in-repo import(s) from 3 other file(s) do name it (src/js/controls.js, src/js/plugins/ads.js, src/js/plugins/preview-thumbnails.js) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/time.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 3 in-repo import(s) from 3 other file(s) do name it (src/js/controls.js, src/js/listeners.js, src/js/support.js) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/animation.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 4 in-repo import(s) from 4 other file(s) do name it (src/js/captions.js, src/js/controls.js, src/js/plyr.js and 1 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/arrays.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 4 in-repo import(s) from 4 other file(s) do name it (src/js/captions.js, src/js/controls.js, src/js/fullscreen.js and 1 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/browser.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 2 in-repo import(s) from 2 other file(s) do name it (REDACTED, src/js/ui.js) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/load-image.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 2 in-repo import(s) from 2 other file(s) do name it (src/js/plugins/preview-thumbnails.js, src/js/plyr.js) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/numbers.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 3 in-repo import(s) from 3 other file(s) do name it (src/js/plugins/ads.js, src/js/plugins/vimeo.js, REDACTED) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/load-script.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), but 5 in-repo import(s) from 5 other file(s) do name it (src/js/fullscreen.js, src/js/html5.js, src/js/listeners.js and 2 more) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/js/utils/promise.js
- no import path from any entry point (4 application, 5 tooling, 0 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make — src/js/plyr.polyfilled.js
What to do
- Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene
- Declared in the root package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
What to do
- Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
R9 · Circular Imports
- src/js/captions.js → src/js/controls.js → src/js/captions.js — src/js/captions.js
What to do
- Break each cycle by extracting the shared piece into a module both sides can import.
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. This is reported because `vercel.json` configures this repository's static hosting, including its response headers, so the configuration that would carry these headers is in this repository and was read in full. (−2.0 on this card.) — site/vercel.json:1
What to do
- Set security response headers on the surface this repository serves: an `add_header` directive per header in the nginx/Caddy/Apache config, a `_headers` / `vercel.json` / `netlify.toml` entry for a static host, or `helmet()` in the HTTP server. `Content-Security-Policy` is the one that pays for itself first — it is what contains an injected script once one reaches the page — followed by `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff` and a frame policy (`X-Frame-Options: DENY`, or CSP `frame-ancestors`). Where the app is served from a build container, the header configuration belongs in the image beside the built assets, so it ships with them rather than depending on where it lands.
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 32% | Weak — gated by R1, R7 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 91% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 51% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 32% | Weak — gated by D8, D9, R4, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 73% | Adequate — gated by D28, D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- 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 — 88 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — Frontend markup is constructed programmatically — 31 DOM factory call(s) across 1 script file(s), which the static markup model cannot read — so accessibility is NOT MEASURED. Only 10 statically-readable DOM element(s) were found; this is a blind spot in the scan, not a small frontend.
- AC2 Forms & labels — Frontend markup is constructed programmatically — 31 DOM factory call(s) across 1 script file(s), which the static markup model cannot read — so accessibility is NOT MEASURED. Only 10 statically-readable DOM element(s) were found; this is a blind spot in the scan, not a small frontend.
- AC3 Page structure — Frontend markup is constructed programmatically — 31 DOM factory call(s) across 1 script file(s), which the static markup model cannot read — so accessibility is NOT MEASURED. Only 10 statically-readable DOM element(s) were found; this is a blind spot in the scan, not a small frontend.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — Frontend markup is constructed programmatically — 31 DOM factory call(s) across 1 script file(s), which the static markup model cannot read — so accessibility is NOT MEASURED. Only 10 statically-readable DOM element(s) were found; this is a blind spot in the scan, not a small frontend.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — Frontend markup is constructed programmatically — 31 DOM factory call(s) across 1 script file(s), which the static markup model cannot read — so accessibility is NOT MEASURED. Only 10 statically-readable DOM element(s) were found; this is a blind spot in the scan, not a small frontend.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — Frontend markup is constructed programmatically — 31 DOM factory call(s) across 1 script file(s), which the static markup model cannot read — so accessibility is NOT MEASURED. Only 10 statically-readable DOM element(s) were found; this is a blind spot in the scan, not a small frontend.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — Frontend markup is constructed programmatically — 31 DOM factory call(s) across 1 script file(s), which the static markup model cannot read — so accessibility is NOT MEASURED. Only 10 statically-readable DOM element(s) were found; this is a blind spot in the scan, not a small frontend.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
- AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
- 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 — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) 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
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D10 Test Quality — No tests were found in the analyzed repository to assess for quality.
- D11 Test Reliability — No test suite was found to re-run, so reliability couldn't be assessed. Two searches produced that zero and both came back empty: the classifier that reads the loaded workspace recognised no suite it could run, and a walk of the source on disk — which covers the JS/TS `*.test.*` and `*.spec.*` conventions and probes for a Pester suite — found no test source in any other ecosystem either. Neither search reaches a suite that is missing from the loaded workspace and carries no name either walk recognises, so this is 'no suite found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none.
- 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.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.ts, .tsx) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. 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
- D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- 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.
- D4 Code Duplication — This repository's production source (.js, .ts, .tsx) is not read by D4's token comparison, which compares .NET source: duplication in it is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream. Not scored here — read the R10 card for this repository's duplication.
- 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.
- D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART class graph, and this repository's production source is .ts, .tsx, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- 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
- DM1 Aggregate boundaries — not scored for TypeScript: a class holding another class reads the same whether the inner type is an aggregate or a value object, so this cannot be decided from source without guessing — reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM2 Strongly-typed ids — not scored for TypeScript: branded ids (`type Id = string & { __brand }`) are an uncommon idiom, so a bare-string id is not on its own evidence of a missing typed id — reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — not scored for TypeScript: a domain type used across packages is indistinguishable in source from a deliberate shared-kernel package, so this is reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model — not scored for TypeScript: telling a rich domain entity from an anemic data holder needs the behaviour a source-only read cannot always attribute (components, DTOs and readonly value objects are all legitimately data-shaped), so this is reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM5 Encapsulated state — not scored for TypeScript: the language already steers state behind #private/private/readonly, so a mutable public field is rare enough that we report this as guidance rather than measuring it
- DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary — this TypeScript/JavaScript repository maps no type to a persistence framework (TypeORM/Prisma/MikroORM/Sequelize/Mongoose), so DM6's domain↔infrastructure fusion read has no population to be taken over
- DM7 Repository granularity — not scored for TypeScript: deciding whether a repository belongs to an aggregate root needs the aggregate structure, which source alone does not state — reported as guidance rather than measured
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- 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.
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- 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 — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
- P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from 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
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) 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 — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
- R5 Dependency Freshness — uses a pnpm lockfile — dependency freshness not measured here; JS/npm CVEs are scored in D30 (Dependency Vulnerabilities), which answers every ecosystem
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- 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
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Critical — 30 finding(s)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- No automated tests
- Import cycle (2 files) src/js/captions.js
Serious — 113 finding(s)
- Hotspot: src/js/listeners.js src/js/listeners.js:44
- Hotspot: src/js/plyr.js src/js/plyr.js:41
- Hotspot: src/js/captions.js src/js/captions.js:27
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) src/js/controls.js:954
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) src/js/fullscreen.js:242
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) src/js/plugins/vimeo.js:49
- Floating npm dependency: @videojs/mux-video
- Floating npm dependency: @videojs/react
- MethodTooLong: Listeners.controls src/js/listeners.js:512
- MethodTooLong: Plyr.constructor src/js/plyr.js:41
- ClassTooLong: Plyr src/js/plyr.js:40
- ClassTooLong: Listeners src/js/listeners.js:31
- Dead file (~42 LoC) src/js/utils/fetch.js
- Dead file (~42 LoC) src/js/utils/objects.js
- Dead file (~14 LoC) src/js/utils/load-script.js
- Dead file (~14 LoC) src/js/utils/promise.js
- ready (cyclomatic 45) REDACTED:106
- Listeners.handleKey (cyclomatic 41) src/js/listeners.js:44
- Listeners.controls (cyclomatic 39) src/js/listeners.js:512
- Plyr.constructor (cyclomatic 39) src/js/plyr.js:41
- create (cyclomatic 34) src/js/controls.js:1266
- ready (cyclomatic 28) src/js/plugins/vimeo.js:87
- setup (cyclomatic 27) src/js/captions.js:27
- change (cyclomatic 24) src/js/source.js:31
- Listeners.container (cyclomatic 20) src/js/listeners.js:229
- inject (cyclomatic 19) src/js/controls.js:1621
- Listeners.media (cyclomatic 16) src/js/listeners.js:335
- createButton (cyclomatic 16) src/js/controls.js:170
- toggleMenu (cyclomatic 16) src/js/controls.js:1125
- constructor (cognitive 56) src/js/plyr.js:41
- ready (cognitive 50) REDACTED:106
- Listeners.controls (cognitive 41) src/js/listeners.js:512
- create (cognitive 39) src/js/controls.js:1266
- Listeners.handleKey (cognitive 35) src/js/listeners.js:44
- change (cognitive 32) src/js/source.js:31
- ready (cognitive 29) src/js/plugins/vimeo.js:87
- setup (cognitive 28) src/js/captions.js:27
- inject (cognitive 24) src/js/controls.js:1621
- bindMenuItemShortcuts (cognitive 22) src/js/controls.js:400
- loadSprite (cognitive 21) src/js/utils/load-sprite.js:10
- Listeners.media (cognitive 18) src/js/listeners.js:335
- createButton (cognitive 18) src/js/controls.js:170
- Listeners.container (cognitive 17) src/js/listeners.js:229
- Plyr.destroy (cognitive 17) src/js/plyr.js:1138
- container::setGutter (cognitive 16) src/js/listeners.js:271
- updateSetting (cognitive 16) src/js/controls.js:822
- toggleMenu (cognitive 16) src/js/controls.js:1125
- FileTooLong: js/plyr.js src/js/plyr.js
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Type Safety
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) src/js/plugins/vimeo.js:254
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) src/js/listeners.js:723
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) src/js/controls.js:915
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) src/js/listeners.js:340
- Complex function handleKey (cyclomatic 41, cognitive 35) src/js/listeners.js:44
- Complex function constructor (cyclomatic 38, cognitive 55) src/js/plyr.js:41
- Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 29, cognitive 33) src/js/controls.js:1292
- Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 23, cognitive 31) src/js/source.js:41
- Complex function setup (cyclomatic 23, cognitive 22) src/js/captions.js:27
- Complex function ready (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 20) REDACTED:106
- Complex function inject (cyclomatic 16, cognitive 18) src/js/controls.js:1621
- Complex function toggleMenu (cyclomatic 16, cognitive 16) src/js/controls.js:1125
- Complex function createButton (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 17) src/js/controls.js:170
- Complex function onStateChange (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 15) REDACTED:348
- Complex function updateSeekTooltip (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 13) src/js/controls.js:687
- Complex function updateSetting (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 16) src/js/controls.js:822
- Complex function volume (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 11) src/js/plyr.js:533
- Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 21) src/js/controls.js:406
- Complex function toggleFallback (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 15) src/js/fullscreen.js:158
- Complex function exit (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 13) src/js/fullscreen.js:265
- Complex function ready (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 12) src/js/plugins/vimeo.js:87
- Complex function build (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 11) src/js/ui.js:30
- Complex function update (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 10) src/js/captions.js:124
- Complex function durationUpdate (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 10) src/js/controls.js:774
- Large Files
- Test Coverage
- No test script
- Dead file (~1852 LoC) src/js/controls.js
- Dead file (~1288 LoC) src/js/plyr.js
- Dead file (~880 LoC) src/js/listeners.js
- Dead file (~696 LoC) src/js/plugins/preview-thumbnails.js
- Dead file (~645 LoC) src/js/plugins/ads.js
- Dead file (~459 LoC) src/js/config/defaults.js
- Dead file (~448 LoC) REDACTED
- Dead file (~440 LoC) src/js/plugins/vimeo.js
- Dead file (~426 LoC) src/js/captions.js
- Dead file (~296 LoC) src/js/ui.js
- Dead file (~293 LoC) src/js/fullscreen.js
- Dead file (~261 LoC) src/js/utils/elements.js
- Dead file (~154 LoC) src/js/source.js
- Dead file (~147 LoC) src/js/html5.js
- Dead file (~146 LoC) src/js/utils/style.js
- Dead file (~115 LoC) src/js/utils/events.js
- Dead file (~99 LoC) src/js/support.js
- Dead file (~84 LoC) src/js/utils/is.js
- Dead file (~83 LoC) src/js/utils/strings.js
- Dead file (~76 LoC) src/js/utils/load-sprite.js
- Dead file (~68 LoC) src/js/storage.js
- Dead file (~59 LoC) src/js/media.js
- Dead file (~47 LoC) src/js/utils/i18n.js
- Dead file (~39 LoC) src/js/utils/urls.js
- Dead file (~35 LoC) src/js/utils/time.js
- Dead file (~34 LoC) src/js/config/types.js
- Dead file (~32 LoC) src/js/utils/animation.js
- Dead file (~28 LoC) src/js/console.js
- Dead file (~23 LoC) src/js/utils/arrays.js
- Dead file (~21 LoC) src/js/utils/browser.js
- Dead file (~19 LoC) src/js/utils/load-image.js
- Dead file (~17 LoC) src/js/utils/numbers.js
- Dead file (~13 LoC) src/js/plyr.polyfilled.js
- Dead file (~10 LoC) src/js/config/states.js
- Unused dependency 'remark-validate-links'
Minor — 15 finding(s)
- Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md
- Documentation: no usage examples README.md
- Documentation: no contributor guidance README.md
- No ADRs found
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- No tests found
- No ADRs
- No architecture diagram/doc
- No tests/ separation
- README/code drift
- No SAST
- No security response headers detected site/vercel.json:1
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| 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-abcb28e55cd34d3da446c08dab7b7dac/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 186 | 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-abcb28e55cd34d3da446c08dab7b7dac/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 . | 20 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| 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 | 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 |