{"$schema":"https://json.schemastore.org/sarif-2.1.0.json","version":"2.1.0","runs":[{"tool":{"driver":{"name":"codehealth","informationUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev","rules":[{"id":"D1","name":"Cyclomatic Complexity","shortDescription":{"text":"Cyclomatic Complexity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D1"},{"id":"D2","name":"Cognitive Complexity","shortDescription":{"text":"Cognitive Complexity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D2"},{"id":"D4","name":"Code Duplication","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Duplication"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D4"},{"id":"D6","name":"Cohesion (LCOM4)","shortDescription":{"text":"Cohesion (LCOM4)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D6"},{"id":"D9","name":"Test Distribution","shortDescription":{"text":"Test Distribution"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D9"},{"id":"D11","name":"Test Reliability","shortDescription":{"text":"Test Reliability"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D11"},{"id":"D12","name":"Dependency Hygiene","shortDescription":{"text":"Dependency Hygiene"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D12"},{"id":"D13","name":"Secret Scanning","shortDescription":{"text":"Secret Scanning"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D13","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-798","CWE-259"]}},{"id":"D15","name":"Churn \u00D7 Complexity Hotspots","shortDescription":{"text":"Churn \u00D7 Complexity Hotspots"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D15"},{"id":"D16","name":"Bus Factor","shortDescription":{"text":"Bus Factor"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D16"},{"id":"D17","name":"Explicit Debt","shortDescription":{"text":"Explicit Debt"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D17"},{"id":"D19","name":"Documentation Quality","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation Quality"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D19"},{"id":"D20","name":"ADR Quality","shortDescription":{"text":"ADR Quality"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D20"},{"id":"D21","name":"Naming Consistency","shortDescription":{"text":"Naming Consistency"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D21"},{"id":"D28","name":"Secrets (history)","shortDescription":{"text":"Secrets (history)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D28","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-798","CWE-259"]}},{"id":"D29","name":"Static Analysis (SAST)","shortDescription":{"text":"Static Analysis (SAST)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D29","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-79","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-89","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-78","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-94","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-77","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-79","CWE-89","CWE-78","CWE-94","CWE-77"]}},{"id":"D30","name":"Dependency Vulnerabilities","shortDescription":{"text":"Dependency Vulnerabilities"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D30","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-1395","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-937","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-1395","CWE-937"]}},{"id":"D34","name":"Knowledge Freshness","shortDescription":{"text":"Knowledge Freshness"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D34"},{"id":"D35","name":"Change Coupling","shortDescription":{"text":"Change Coupling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D35"},{"id":"D36","name":"Supply-chain Provenance \u0026 Signing","shortDescription":{"text":"Supply-chain Provenance \u0026 Signing"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D36","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-494","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-1357","CWE-494"]}},{"id":"D37","name":"Vulnerability-disclosure Policy","shortDescription":{"text":"Vulnerability-disclosure Policy"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D37","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-1059","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-1059"]}},{"id":"D43","name":"Malicious Dependencies","shortDescription":{"text":"Malicious Dependencies"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D43","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-506","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-506"]}},{"id":"AX10","name":"Code composition","shortDescription":{"text":"Code composition"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX10"},{"id":"AXB2","name":"Runtime readiness","shortDescription":{"text":"Runtime readiness"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AXB2"},{"id":"DM1","name":"Aggregate boundaries","shortDescription":{"text":"Aggregate boundaries"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/DM1"},{"id":"DM10","name":"One transaction, one aggregate","shortDescription":{"text":"One transaction, one aggregate"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/DM10"},{"id":"DM11","name":"Constructible invalid state","shortDescription":{"text":"Constructible invalid state"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/DM11"},{"id":"DM12","name":"Ambient inputs in the domain","shortDescription":{"text":"Ambient inputs in the domain"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/DM12"},{"id":"DM4","name":"Rich vs anemic model","shortDescription":{"text":"Rich vs anemic model"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/DM4"},{"id":"DM5","name":"Encapsulated state","shortDescription":{"text":"Encapsulated state"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/DM5"},{"id":"DM6","name":"Domain \u2194 infrastructure boundary","shortDescription":{"text":"Domain \u2194 infrastructure boundary"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/DM6"},{"id":"DM7","name":"Repository granularity","shortDescription":{"text":"Repository granularity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/DM7"},{"id":"DM8","name":"Value-object opportunities","shortDescription":{"text":"Value-object opportunities"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/DM8"},{"id":"M1","name":"Documentation (README)","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation (README)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M1"},{"id":"M2","name":"Architecture documentation","shortDescription":{"text":"Architecture documentation"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M2"},{"id":"M3","name":"Folder \u0026 project structure","shortDescription":{"text":"Folder \u0026 project structure"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M3"},{"id":"M4","name":"Documentation accuracy","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation accuracy"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M4"},{"id":"P1","name":"CI/CD gates","shortDescription":{"text":"CI/CD gates"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P1"},{"id":"P12","name":"CI test-gate honesty","shortDescription":{"text":"CI test-gate honesty"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P12"},{"id":"P3","name":"Security \u0026 performance tooling","shortDescription":{"text":"Security \u0026 performance tooling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P3"},{"id":"P4","name":"Deployment \u0026 Rollback","shortDescription":{"text":"Deployment \u0026 Rollback"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P4"},{"id":"P5","name":"DR \u0026 Backup","shortDescription":{"text":"DR \u0026 Backup"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P5"},{"id":"P6","name":"Release Hygiene","shortDescription":{"text":"Release Hygiene"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P6"},{"id":"R1","name":"Type Safety","shortDescription":{"text":"Type Safety"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/R1"},{"id":"R10","name":"Code Duplication","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Duplication"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/R10"},{"id":"R2","name":"Cyclomatic Complexity","shortDescription":{"text":"Cyclomatic Complexity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/R2"},{"id":"R3","name":"Large Files","shortDescription":{"text":"Large Files"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/R3"},{"id":"R5","name":"Dependency Freshness","shortDescription":{"text":"Dependency Freshness"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/R5"},{"id":"R6","name":"Tooling","shortDescription":{"text":"Tooling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/R6"},{"id":"R7","name":"Dead Code","shortDescription":{"text":"Dead Code"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/R7"},{"id":"R9","name":"Circular Imports","shortDescription":{"text":"Circular Imports"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/R9"},{"id":"SC1","name":"Supply-chain hygiene","shortDescription":{"text":"Supply-chain hygiene"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/SC1"},{"id":"X9","name":"Subsumed condition operand","shortDescription":{"text":"Subsumed condition operand"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X9"}]}},"results":[{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ConfigManager.applyDefaults (cyclomatic 29): ConfigManager.applyDefaults has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/config_manager.go"},"region":{"startLine":439}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d4e16518b44ee6943faec61b958c55df216b7d0f50034f6113f4c4b9bbc3d67e"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.generateCreateDTOWithFields (cyclomatic 22): cmd.generateCreateDTOWithFields has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/usecase.go"},"region":{"startLine":649}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6dea126a265505c2510dff8119ffba322f3d5ed075c3e1f90181c873dfb59c94"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.generateDTOFileWithFields (cyclomatic 21): cmd.generateDTOFileWithFields has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/usecase.go"},"region":{"startLine":170}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6eb4ca28575a1cb71a89524361589cfa946ab2f19e39cb3d24ba2199796ca274"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.generateUseCaseServiceWithFields (cyclomatic 19): cmd.generateUseCaseServiceWithFields has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/usecase.go"},"region":{"startLine":351}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"10e78b1759aef56b152c86a6a223ef4dc0310d039fc1842d14e8647dccc85b36"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.createProjectStructure (cyclomatic 18): cmd.createProjectStructure has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/init.go"},"region":{"startLine":249}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4b0db64659c54a534da49bcc1ddf048db06ead47076f855a4a80f82b79971288"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.addMissingFeaturesToMain (cyclomatic 17): cmd.addMissingFeaturesToMain has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/integrate.go"},"region":{"startLine":553}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d00d190362ff60559efe2e4189c01f70518c4e6e28e19f983ebf1746b0f36b67"}},{"ruleId":"D1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"CodeValidator.ValidateNamingConventions (cyclomatic 16): CodeValidator.ValidateNamingConventions has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 198). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal\u0027s work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/testing/validator.go"},"region":{"startLine":189}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"677c12a13022cdf49ee192ae79b5c44bc9856acfcec236f9c4bcbd73430d9c7e"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.generateDTOFileWithFields (cognitive 37): cmd.generateDTOFileWithFields has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (33 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/usecase.go"},"region":{"startLine":170}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1799da3eb26832c7630f7ffef64308b56327b8c4ccdbe297e4b928658b69673c"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.createProjectStructure (cognitive 32): cmd.createProjectStructure has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (28 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/init.go"},"region":{"startLine":249}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"352b0bcde15947a27492ca9415ff9b7e74634fefa08070ea4e61bc22c759eec8"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"CodeValidator.ValidateNamingConventions (cognitive 30): CodeValidator.ValidateNamingConventions has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (17 pts), loops 2 (8 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 17). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 30 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 198). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal\u0027s work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/testing/validator.go"},"region":{"startLine":189}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0a1b2df6f1424d7bb54a64e23f9b0db9169ccaffb2d091cd6ce737d1a200b458"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ConfigManager.applyDefaults (cognitive 28): ConfigManager.applyDefaults has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21, boolean chains 7. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth \u2014 many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/config_manager.go"},"region":{"startLine":439}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0db4791ad32703dd14582cf83165364af8fb0b615dd46f651a0253aa584a9423"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.addMissingFeaturesToMain (cognitive 27): cmd.addMissingFeaturesToMain has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (22 pts), loops 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/integrate.go"},"region":{"startLine":553}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c3d56e63cb1ed07570ccfeaccd57716c1924efc041780767df631bb8ba252d0f"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.generateCreateDTOWithFields (cognitive 26): cmd.generateCreateDTOWithFields has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), loops 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/usecase.go"},"region":{"startLine":649}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d3690445e7b1ed2cf86c80df342f1d4ed44d9811c65ff8f18e12306a052e1881"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"ConfigManager.PrintSummary (cognitive 26): ConfigManager.PrintSummary has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), loops 4 (12 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/config_manager.go"},"region":{"startLine":677}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ce09c363aa27192a3a5a46f595c0894d024a6f6095c557bcca8a37cc5e271cca"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.collectEntityNames (cognitive 25): cmd.collectEntityNames has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (17 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/analyze_checks.go"},"region":{"startLine":1157}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"76a6bf77b7de34595a9e18c600e9b61bb2c39279d228e269c68ffdfb063b5266"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.generateUseCaseServiceWithFields (cognitive 25): cmd.generateUseCaseServiceWithFields has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (19 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/usecase.go"},"region":{"startLine":351}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a39a0ef8f61bc4a27c3be3dcf9d4583a7fd82bfedb929484acf53c10441af588"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.verifyIntegration (cognitive 21): cmd.verifyIntegration has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), loops 2 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/integrate.go"},"region":{"startLine":683}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a41be78c64ef6dfba4fd3abd70ad7d84eaeec9ca652782665476c7b9390f6ed4"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.init (cognitive 21): cmd.init has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (3 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/version.go"},"region":{"startLine":44}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d2eace44ae749a120645fc683f90e89bcbc66d7fd723d05d3a46d59c64b78850"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TestSuite.verifyEntityFile (cognitive 21): TestSuite.verifyEntityFile has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (20 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/testing/suite.go"},"region":{"startLine":580}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5cfdc755ff528378a7cb1b0d13f1b4ae8e4ed02ea461e7df7ed9543d51a81f59"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"UIRenderer.Table (cognitive 19): UIRenderer.Table has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), loops 7 (9 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/ui.go"},"region":{"startLine":212}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"66ed39cb868e0c5a813436ec12ff2a540f7f389fed87cbdc5d44b44600d9c467"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.checkExportedFunctionsHaveDocs (cognitive 18): cmd.checkExportedFunctionsHaveDocs has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/analyze_checks.go"},"region":{"startLine":407}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a81914425aa07e4af64786c64e369ddf12d743b3bd9eeea9d532b07b90f0e766"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.writeGoFile (cognitive 17): cmd.writeGoFile has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (16 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 4). Of this number, 13 points are the body\u0027s own statements and 4 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/utils.go"},"region":{"startLine":119}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6e54d74230f0091a5bde8c511ee85db1a734614d9952847d838acb4f92fb6ef1"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"SafetyManager.printSummaryStyled (cognitive 17): SafetyManager.printSummaryStyled has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 3 (9 pts), if/else 5 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/safety.go"},"region":{"startLine":200}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b4298391573eaab794fc611d1644bb02326a553475a1822548f94c0444f3216d"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"cmd.dirHasLayerFile (cognitive 16): cmd.dirHasLayerFile has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/integrate.go"},"region":{"startLine":140}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9626df7cc9f1c3b2d062194f83872b3c6f6844d53c1b50239240666248f6b0f9"}},{"ruleId":"D2","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TestSuite.reportResults (cognitive 16): TestSuite.reportResults has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (9 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth \u2014 checks laid out side by side rather than stacked \u2014 so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/testing/suite.go"},"region":{"startLine":825}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0e41c0e0722baa2cacd51961a2ba0a2f73f2f9c81f1bdc2770531a2635043d12"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Members sharing a duplicated core (13 members, 50\u002B identical tokens): cmd/mcp_tools_core.go:60-81 | cmd/mcp_tools_core.go:119-140 | cmd/mcp_tools_core.go:166-183 | cmd/mcp_tools_core.go:206-222 | cmd/mcp_tools_core.go:248-265 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:50-65 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:84-94 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:118-133 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:157-172 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:195-208 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:236-252 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:335-349 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:377-392 \u2014 These 13 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below \u2014 it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 13 times. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 13 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/mcp_tools_core.go"},"region":{"startLine":60}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"873a0be555323a9f5645de238f15ca5aa50154bd75062c478b3ac88a2de667f0"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50\u002B identical tokens): cmd/di.go:54-105 | cmd/entity.go:13-145 | cmd/handler.go:13-161 | cmd/integrate.go:14-67 | cmd/interfaces.go:12-71 | cmd/messages.go:12-71 | cmd/mocks.go:12-82 | cmd/repository.go:12-117 | cmd/test_integration.go:13-103 | cmd/usecase.go:13-124 \u2014 These 10 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below \u2014 it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 10 times. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 10 times."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/di.go"},"region":{"startLine":54}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9e377e3bef3c130a9a205b2d6c194b0690ef774233ced27816c9ce409efde16c"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (30 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/utils.go:86-115 | cmd/utils.go:136-165 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/utils.go:136\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a \u0060defer\u0060-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead \u2014 before the caller uses what it releases \u2014 so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, \u0060cmd/utils.go:85\u0060 calls \u0060writeFile\u0060 and \u0060cmd/utils.go:133\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/utils.go"},"region":{"startLine":86}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"faf5b87b2cea372f39c91db0f6d2a265d8fec33f0ba09570f1a10411175d3d19"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (25\u201326 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/repository_other_db.go:210-235 | cmd/repository_other_db.go:242-266 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/repository_other_db.go"},"region":{"startLine":210}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ab151115130c363fd5273c560da76fe74ff34b219d0813a6f7f872fe079e7f66"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (23 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/repository_fields.go:333-355 | cmd/repository_impl.go:259-281 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060cmd/repository_impl.go:283\u0060 calls \u0060WriteString\u0060 and \u0060cmd/repository_fields.go:359\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/repository_fields.go"},"region":{"startLine":333}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e7e4495fd783c3c11ef2c585301d31bb38c00ff86f47ebf04612ccb4a99cf402"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (20\u201321 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/config_integration.go:142-162 | cmd/config_manager.go:130-149 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names \u2014 the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/config_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":142}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2f7fc0eb06c77e977a818f3cfc5f30f119f7dd4987f0b946e36c5d7427d729e4"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (18\u201319 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/safety.go:113-131 | cmd/safety.go:157-174 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/safety.go:113\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/safety.go"},"region":{"startLine":113}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a6091e98c9f71b5e838e9d799170a708163e1f991e6186016456abc0eab1dec3"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (18\u201319 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/repository.go:186-204 | cmd/repository_fields.go:26-43 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/repository.go:186\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/repository.go"},"region":{"startLine":186}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"514fac2cd29485c50ea81630a8126351e1539d8126a5f9e352640000d73d6294"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (18 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/messages.go:108-125 | cmd/messages.go:154-171 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/messages.go:108\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/messages.go"},"region":{"startLine":108}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"256a359e293682b7fa323e4f60b80b2365eb2a08d0f308012ae66abfd573b19c"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (15 lines \u00D7 3): internal/handler/http/order_handler.go:23-37 | internal/handler/http/product_handler.go:23-37 | internal/handler/http/user_handler.go:23-37 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060internal/handler/http/order_handler.go\u0060 and \u0060internal/handler/http/product_handler.go\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 60 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060internal/handler/http/order_handler.go:23\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/handler/http/order_handler.go"},"region":{"startLine":23}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"dfc61593d85ba1344b7c31928363b00d7d1a33acb0a5ab010dab269bb5f48c55"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (13 lines \u00D7 2): internal/testing/validator.go:125-137 | internal/testing/validator.go:169-181 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060internal/testing/validator.go:125\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/testing/validator.go"},"region":{"startLine":125}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"51661d8ae46a66556e574c24295fbafca2cfd7b7617dfef61afdce9c40e389da"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (13 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/repository_fields.go:356-368 | cmd/repository_impl.go:283-295 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, \u0060cmd/repository_impl.go:280\u0060 calls \u0060WriteString\u0060 and \u0060cmd/repository_fields.go:353\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/repository_fields.go"},"region":{"startLine":356}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"bd244ae2418c6787ea183f1859ac4944c897c6e241452e052429fcb1118495e1"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (12 lines \u00D7 3): internal/handler/http/order_handler.go:44-55 | internal/handler/http/product_handler.go:44-55 | internal/handler/http/user_handler.go:44-55 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060internal/handler/http/order_handler.go\u0060 and \u0060internal/handler/http/product_handler.go\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 60 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060internal/handler/http/order_handler.go:44\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/handler/http/order_handler.go"},"region":{"startLine":44}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"36ab01dcc9529aad65e9f2eb5e0fd3629b9e2c0a6dbca6d39a255a1e601395e3"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (12 lines \u00D7 3): internal/handler/http/order_handler.go:66-77 | internal/handler/http/product_handler.go:66-77 | internal/handler/http/user_handler.go:66-77 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060internal/handler/http/order_handler.go\u0060 and \u0060internal/handler/http/product_handler.go\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 60 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060internal/handler/http/order_handler.go:66\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/handler/http/order_handler.go"},"region":{"startLine":66}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7e5fdb0101add8f93f8e58db2cf608a0ba95cd71c4c424488b4d84ae2bc340c7"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/handler.go:361-371 | cmd/handler.go:432-442 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/handler.go"},"region":{"startLine":361}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c61f0e48373379901d81d449ab8a0cca8eaea0c4ffa388223807700fad2e9563"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/usecase.go:470-480 | cmd/usecase.go:513-523 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/usecase.go"},"region":{"startLine":470}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8d95a236eacc4cfb042be364ee152346a440d60aed91311a833a782ad38ebd4b"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 2): internal/testing/suite.go:467-476 | internal/testing/suite.go:583-592 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/testing/suite.go"},"region":{"startLine":467}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c176dc5f59240e68df340ec35000b862c77dd1d3cb4c2f132a680c1eaa6aa8a6"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/upgrade.go:258-267 | cmd/upgrade.go:274-283 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/upgrade.go:258\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The \u0060return\u0060 at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body\u0027s own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that \u0060return\u0060 occupied \u2014 no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/upgrade.go"},"region":{"startLine":258}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c53fa2865063615e1ea2fd7b04ad8b4d9e566141828131cb0f63ef287d543ad4"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9 lines \u00D7 13): cmd/mcp_tools_core.go:73-81 | cmd/mcp_tools_core.go:132-140 | cmd/mcp_tools_core.go:175-183 | cmd/mcp_tools_core.go:214-222 | cmd/mcp_tools_core.go:257-265 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:57-65 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:86-94 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:125-133 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:164-172 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:200-208 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:244-252 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:341-349 | cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:384-392 \u2014 there are 13 copies across 2 file(s) \u2014 more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 13 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/mcp_tools_core.go:73\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, \u0060cmd/mcp_tools_util.go:340\u0060 calls \u0060appendIfSet\u0060, \u0060GetString\u0060 and \u0060cmd/mcp_tools_core.go:72\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/mcp_tools_core.go"},"region":{"startLine":73}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"df8f509744292f0c274945b7fff14f3e93dfe1982f2bae7466665100e97d4b38"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/repository.go:206-214 | cmd/repository_fields.go:52-60 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/repository.go"},"region":{"startLine":206}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"be27c5da3898cd566bea0fb349a91c8514d16a727e282fade7e7b29e7eb096ae"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 10): cmd/di.go:87-94 | cmd/entity.go:111-118 | cmd/handler.go:105-112 | cmd/integrate.go:25-32 | cmd/interfaces.go:53-60 | cmd/messages.go:53-60 | cmd/mocks.go:59-66 | cmd/repository.go:99-106 | cmd/test_integration.go:72-79 | cmd/usecase.go:96-103 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from all 10 call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/di.go"},"region":{"startLine":87}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"784bcb7b253b623aa6fa8bf052a36722a60869de5f2b76706e335d263aed5c4c"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/messages.go:98-105 | cmd/messages.go:144-151 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/messages.go:98\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/messages.go"},"region":{"startLine":98}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7237fbe8fe2c9e1b00790cc38977b728c01afff63e91177214036b0d04986a03"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/entity.go:1062-1066 | cmd/entity.go:1165-1169 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/entity.go:1062\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/entity.go"},"region":{"startLine":1062}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ad5104debc772c644b7e3af0c601024df1a5ac8e61d7116c85ecbf2cee832c1d"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (7 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/safety.go:314-320 | cmd/template_manager.go:521-527 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/safety.go"},"region":{"startLine":314}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1eae1a598aa32716475f28a54dbf934cc089eeb6b0c0a1256cc2e26ae9b6ed80"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 3): internal/handler/http/order_handler.go:95-104 | internal/handler/http/product_handler.go:95-104 | internal/handler/http/user_handler.go:95-104 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060internal/handler/http/order_handler.go\u0060 and \u0060internal/handler/http/product_handler.go\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 60 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/handler/http/order_handler.go"},"region":{"startLine":95}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4250903dd200ddec2989ab6f8a4a8eb8443c26cb079af913defca0d33693fbff"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 3): internal/repository/postgres_order_repository.go:24-31 | internal/repository/postgres_product_repository.go:24-31 | internal/repository/postgres_user_repository.go:24-31 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/repository/postgres_order_repository.go"},"region":{"startLine":24}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3b2cfbe4f9a9a832cab0885449a8f156f32ee143df00b0b23e1895758c6d2503"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 3): internal/repository/postgres_order_repository.go:43-50 | internal/repository/postgres_product_repository.go:43-50 | internal/repository/postgres_user_repository.go:43-50 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/repository/postgres_order_repository.go"},"region":{"startLine":43}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9db347d8efafbb68d12168f0fa85b5dd23aefdaa2a5f039c2188e56efd3f46ef"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 2): internal/repository/postgres_product_repository.go:52-59 | internal/repository/postgres_user_repository.go:52-59 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/repository/postgres_product_repository.go"},"region":{"startLine":52}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5439e9bcf08d805e3fd4c6c4c9888c0d81efe98042bff81da4a82b241bd43793"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (69 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/init_main_go.go:140-208 | cmd/init_main_go.go:218-286 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/init_main_go.go"},"region":{"startLine":140}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c878537aeaa3397190e486f3fca51234864cf6f22e7560701f20dd82456e6b51"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (12 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/handler_other.go:477-488 | cmd/handler_other.go:558-569 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/handler_other.go:477\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/handler_other.go"},"region":{"startLine":477}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5dcac31c5eee557ea02959d2c9c07a7c9564c0363725137c6550f0664fd3e773"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/repository_impl.go:116-126 | cmd/repository_impl.go:178-188 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/repository_impl.go:116\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows \u2014 the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members\u0027 bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run \u2014 a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift \u2014 so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member\u0027s own documentation with it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/repository_impl.go"},"region":{"startLine":116}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8a9dda66bdcb819c3b4d97f2fd7d235fc790511913992bc7d48f3c1ab55e7357"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/repository.go:177-187 | cmd/usecase.go:209-219 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/repository.go:177\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind \u0060string\u0060 to \u0060entity\u0060 in one and \u0060fields\u0060 in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH \u2014 their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not \u2014 and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/repository.go"},"region":{"startLine":177}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4625492d47c88324e84a72b66704ec643971ddee9dd3448c12c44739d6993dd7"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (11 lines \u00D7 3): internal/handler/http/order_handler.go:83-93 | internal/handler/http/product_handler.go:83-93 | internal/handler/http/user_handler.go:83-93 \u2014 before extracting anything, compare \u0060internal/handler/http/order_handler.go\u0060 and \u0060internal/handler/http/product_handler.go\u0060 as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 60 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together \u2014 extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060internal/handler/http/order_handler.go:83\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/handler/http/order_handler.go"},"region":{"startLine":83}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0ffe5d602ec260b887ba654fed45a9b38bcc6a631d6e1ea1a22f8a01e41e31c3"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/field_validator.go:313-322 | cmd/field_validator.go:323-332 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/field_validator.go:313\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/field_validator.go"},"region":{"startLine":313}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"685b22e42303d5cb04a2d796848c72dd3995fe8f14ebf89ae76a79a9fd0699df"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 3): internal/testing/architecture.go:111-120 | internal/testing/architecture.go:146-155 | internal/testing/architecture.go:181-190 \u2014 all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060internal/testing/architecture.go:111\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/testing/architecture.go"},"region":{"startLine":111}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fe39e583ab0bd036c39b15f0961f5cfc6cabba32471a0b97e50a7ce061769f91"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (10 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/handler_other.go:172-181 | cmd/handler_other.go:362-371 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/handler_other.go:172\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/handler_other.go"},"region":{"startLine":172}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9ea65add6444eb5c3963c78ece44dbd38bfed59a3c18fe93a6b364e92b71fd7c"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/entity.go:30-38 | cmd/repository.go:29-34 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/entity.go"},"region":{"startLine":30}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"53874ae1e847e04f7f63d83b8cd1ae7ef96f0dbc0a2fee9b7de9864b4543a9df"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/repository_other_db.go:12-20 | cmd/repository_other_db.go:79-87 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/repository_other_db.go"},"region":{"startLine":12}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c819123d652225eb9f7602ba2800edcec23a27be79ad12779a4f452518ad1ab0"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/analyze_checks.go:735-743 | cmd/analyze_checks.go:1061-1069 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/analyze_checks.go:735\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows \u2014 the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members\u0027 bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run \u2014 a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift \u2014 so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member\u0027s own documentation with it. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, \u0060cmd/analyze_checks.go:745\u0060 calls \u0060TrimSpace\u0060 and \u0060cmd/analyze_checks.go:1071\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/analyze_checks.go"},"region":{"startLine":735}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"443f4532e6abc59a62a6d9ee05ea43ce736c56c97e49c67526793a80d17faf7f"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/doctor.go:180-187 | cmd/doctor.go:202-209 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/doctor.go:180\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/doctor.go"},"region":{"startLine":180}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"dc74b500721504a2709c4b88a4ddf39e483969d0885839bccb3da241ae46ec82"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 2): internal/testing/suite.go:161-168 | internal/testing/suite.go:229-236 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/testing/suite.go"},"region":{"startLine":161}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1db6f497d4101ae3ce08d331df3a536f64b7ee62241ef2d6dc7f230941618e3f"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 3): cmd/safety.go:113-120 | cmd/safety.go:157-163 | cmd/utils.go:185-190 \u2014 there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) \u2014 more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/safety.go:113\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, \u0060cmd/utils.go:182\u0060 calls \u0060WriteMergedFile\u0060 and \u0060cmd/safety.go:154\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/safety.go"},"region":{"startLine":113}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"66add4d5e70cfc4a17b017ba5a465dd414e965f4580e7250f3ae6c490d75a338"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (8 lines \u00D7 3): cmd/handler.go:394-401 | cmd/handler.go:422-429 | cmd/handler.go:461-468 \u2014 all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/handler.go"},"region":{"startLine":394}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"017069ab49275ba1009dd978ea3b7621eb2057be10a2546ada8bc4e17073bdb7"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/entity.go:1085-1090 | cmd/entity.go:1178-1183 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/entity.go:1085\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/entity.go"},"region":{"startLine":1085}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9c4cdf94e594ab6588849935639a770d8be9ec4960932833c3b0b9461dc54457"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/entity.go:1069-1074 | cmd/entity.go:1169-1174 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/entity.go:1069\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/entity.go"},"region":{"startLine":1069}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3e434d8a9897670e4cf92091ae880fc38bf987dc76110d0d3d79f909029b9fb5"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/entity.go:30-34 | cmd/feature.go:37-42 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/feature.go:37\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names \u2014 the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. \u2605 These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, \u0060cmd/feature.go:33\u0060 calls \u0060Flags\u0060, \u0060GetString\u0060 and \u0060cmd/entity.go:26\u0060 does not \u2014 after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/entity.go"},"region":{"startLine":30}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"15fbb349e6ecb0b81a6ab469a3d72829a0f04508587e4a195947b6a3199f031e"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 3): cmd/init_main_go.go:131-135 | cmd/init_main_go.go:210-214 | cmd/init_main_go.go:288-292 \u2014 all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites \u2014 resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/init_main_go.go:131\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/init_main_go.go"},"region":{"startLine":131}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e2eb4821c76646b57f3cde9b4e36cb62698fdeda5693ed4d4e2c6b6f6452f1a1"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (5 lines \u00D7 3): cmd/handler.go:734-738 | cmd/handler_other.go:549-553 | cmd/handler_other.go:660-664 \u2014 there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) \u2014 more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/handler.go:734\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it \u2014 the window is that declaration\u0027s tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/handler.go"},"region":{"startLine":734}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"2921fc613c9f9341877ef0fb9bfb4f15dfdf191e2e6de3d667010c96b6173b5c"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Edited copy of a member (34 corresponding lines): internal/testing/framework/test_framework.go:108-173 | internal/testing/framework/test_framework.go:176-255 \u2014 These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 34 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below \u2014 the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members\u0027 grain \u2014 factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/testing/framework/test_framework.go"},"region":{"startLine":108}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4eb50c43ccf054a71b61a28861e1beb86fb75d311f31a3b9a2fe1331659b5660"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (34 lines \u00D7 2): internal/testing/framework/test_framework.go:125-158 | internal/testing/framework/test_framework.go:188-221 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/testing/framework/test_framework.go"},"region":{"startLine":125}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b29ade8fb55cb6d76844a3770e381bcd22b67450b67ee8f8c16c8fc523306a68"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (30 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/entity_test_generator.go:240-269 | cmd/entity_test_generator.go:292-321 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/entity_test_generator.go:240\u0060 it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/entity_test_generator.go"},"region":{"startLine":240}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"59099267e5fa2e64bd2b7b19f2d12dc58162b0f0ef224d397ca3244949e86682"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (7 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/mocks.go:36-42 | cmd/test_integration.go:37-43 \u2014 the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/mocks.go:36\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/mocks.go"},"region":{"startLine":36}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3078a3a96cd673d81543691ddd696d992d1510581a049593f7721433ed5cc459"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9 lines \u00D7 2): cmd/entity_test_generator.go:74-82 | cmd/entity_test_generator.go:172-180 \u2014 both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site \u2014 the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060cmd/entity_test_generator.go:74\u0060 it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand \u2014 widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/entity_test_generator.go"},"region":{"startLine":74}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6319bc2651f9f4a80ded8228e44823548423c44db17cc00713f92e3216149034"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: CodeValidator (LCOM4 8): CodeValidator\u0027s methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/testing/validator.go"},"region":{"startLine":15}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1fca11a4005200f96c7ec49ff8d6ae0ef3cf651601a870d943a05a34862aca25"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: DependencyManager (LCOM4 4): DependencyManager\u0027s methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/dependency_manager.go"},"region":{"startLine":13}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c4c621509fb134e531820b84d98b6ff39dabbc5f8068c733e2eab9ce4d194d18"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: ErrorHandler (LCOM4 4): ErrorHandler\u0027s methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/errors.go"},"region":{"startLine":9}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"904e91a8e86944dc3925476b9970bc9354001ae3c3d4b31a325d92c70b4cd283"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: ArchitectureValidator (LCOM4 4): ArchitectureValidator\u0027s methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/testing/architecture.go"},"region":{"startLine":12}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"cde3ef82aaaa767a40d44ed4974f221b813681f9cab159c4631760c2cceb027a"}},{"ruleId":"D13","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"98c87e63a6ba949f8488f1602c980165d08ac85b58df57f242a7922c287a67c5"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Hotspot: cmd/usecase.go: cmd/usecase.go changed 8 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 22 in cmd.generateCreateDTOWithFields at line 649. 8 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one \u2014 a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/usecase.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/usecase.go"},"region":{"startLine":649}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b419f5fa420b9cdcfe7e03655abd21677321324ef8058c0fa926377f50bf2f6f"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Hotspot: cmd/test_integration.go: cmd/test_integration.go changed 5 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 26 in cmd.testLiteral at line 636. 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one \u2014 a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/test_integration.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":636}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e2ef097884cbb99b1835f60f46da747cb04fce3f64232896b3590d3ebd8f9835"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Hotspot: cmd/integrate.go: cmd/integrate.go changed 7 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 17 in cmd.addMissingFeaturesToMain at line 553. 7 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one \u2014 a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/integrate.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/integrate.go"},"region":{"startLine":553}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3b952a4ade0df39270356cd42068088553bf32f49c048799121da858f1c64a07"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Hotspot: cmd/config_manager.go: cmd/config_manager.go changed 4 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 29 in ConfigManager.applyDefaults at line 439. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one \u2014 a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/config_manager.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/config_manager.go"},"region":{"startLine":439}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d83db01d1a4d8b403a73b4d36400ea980a4a9f692bba79de1715b7b08e86d522"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Hotspot: cmd/entity_test_generator.go: cmd/entity_test_generator.go changed 3 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 26 in cmd.generateFieldTests at line 210. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one \u2014 a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/entity_test_generator.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/entity_test_generator.go"},"region":{"startLine":210}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"647e94c53d6517a364b59eed285bfe9adc817eed0478f1b9044ed006fb8fe584"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Hotspot: cmd/init.go: cmd/init.go changed 4 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 18 in cmd.createProjectStructure at line 249. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one \u2014 a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/init.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/init.go"},"region":{"startLine":249}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"bb44ab57dea768e31c3f66f5823cd3c91e3f01bdd156bd7ee4084c33d061a51b"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Hotspot: cmd/mocks.go: cmd/mocks.go changed 3 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 18 in cmd.generateMocks at line 97. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one \u2014 a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/mocks.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/mocks.go"},"region":{"startLine":97}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6fecda972be4520048a5b36e65560285b3e0857e2f250629ab3e319b72d7f6d0"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Hotspot: cmd/version.go: cmd/version.go changed 2 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 15 in cmd.init at line 44. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one \u2014 a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/version.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/version.go"},"region":{"startLine":44}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a8775ae0fd970d264cea05934cc0b13f172e540e23d98dc1bcd2e9f7c1ece35c"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Hotspot: internal/testing/suite.go: internal/testing/suite.go changed 2 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 15 in TestSuite.verifyEntityFile at line 580. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one \u2014 a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- internal/testing/suite.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/testing/suite.go"},"region":{"startLine":580}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a4821c4760ffef91eebcec35fe4caaf61828b2593eb7d2d796f11d0b3abbc23a"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/feature.go: cmd/feature.go changed 9 times in last 90 days and 9 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 7 (its worst body is cmd.printFeatureStructure at line 294), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: dynamodb/elasticsearch go.mod deps \u002B global docs accuracy sweep\u201D; \u201Cfix: 5 real generator bugs found via exhaustive flag/docs validation pass\u201D; \u201Cfix: entity-vs-module-name collision silently drops feature route registration\u201D; \u201Cfix: wire custom templates into generation, fix init-git race, add release script\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/feature.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/feature.go"},"region":{"startLine":294}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ddb81f58ad4678b88da60923b7ddb89e4679a992e94fcd15cfac48b8bdaee89b"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/repository_fields.go: cmd/repository_fields.go changed 8 times in last 90 days and 8 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 10 (its worst body is cmd.appendToRepoFile at line 163), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: wire custom templates into generation, fix init-git race, add release script\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 4 \u2014 repository constructor wiring, time.Time imports, error formatting, CI YAML\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 3 \u2014 ~60 generator bugs across all commands\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 2 \u2014 fix --wire, --integration-tests, and repository --transactions\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/repository_fields.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/repository_fields.go"},"region":{"startLine":163}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a5f5862902dcdf478158e1000f17713246c3af6078ca85f41fe18d078c4de0af"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/repository.go: cmd/repository.go changed 7 times in last 90 days and 7 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 10 (its worst body is cmd.generateRepository at line 119), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: dynamodb/elasticsearch go.mod deps \u002B global docs accuracy sweep\u201D; \u201Cfix: wire custom templates into generation, fix init-git race, add release script\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 5 \u2014 grpc scaffold, middleware wiring, interfaces, elasticsearch reads, config port, messages dry-run\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 4 \u2014 repository constructor wiring, time.Time imports, error formatting, CI YAML\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/repository.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/repository.go"},"region":{"startLine":119}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"835814704e2a4216009ba76c0c23cb1f79b291e03e635b7098cdb27b25871b67"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/entity.go: cmd/entity.go changed 6 times in last 90 days and 6 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 14 (its worst body is cmd.customTypeBase at line 522), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: 5 real generator bugs found via exhaustive flag/docs validation pass\u201D; \u201Cfix: wire custom templates into generation, fix init-git race, add release script\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 3 \u2014 ~60 generator bugs across all commands\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch \u2014 fix ~10 generator bugs across entities, CLI, mocks, DI and config\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/entity.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/entity.go"},"region":{"startLine":522}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"64c273e31f9f0f8139d1a2469c07a4afcb15c3f10d9151927e0bc8d5bdbf651c"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/handler_other.go: cmd/handler_other.go changed 6 times in last 90 days and 6 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 11 (its worst body is cmd.generateCLIHandler at line 356), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 5 \u2014 grpc scaffold, middleware wiring, interfaces, elasticsearch reads, config port, messages dry-run\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 3 \u2014 ~60 generator bugs across all commands\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch \u2014 fix ~10 generator bugs across entities, CLI, mocks, DI and config\u201D; \u201Cfix: resolve audit issues #35\u2013#50 (generated code now compiles, vets and tests clean)\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/handler_other.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/handler_other.go"},"region":{"startLine":356}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"68480cc18a9b2f0c9f3cc6ababddbb13762d08a37b7357e5620545df288b4652"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/di.go: cmd/di.go changed 6 times in last 90 days and 6 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 10 (its worst body is cmd.generateManualDI at line 125), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 4 \u2014 repository constructor wiring, time.Time imports, error formatting, CI YAML\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 3 \u2014 ~60 generator bugs across all commands\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 2 \u2014 fix --wire, --integration-tests, and repository --transactions\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch \u2014 fix ~10 generator bugs across entities, CLI, mocks, DI and config\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/di.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/di.go"},"region":{"startLine":125}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"42d238bc269e7a2ac7ec3268671eba81953cd1386fbb14d63639689ca375cd4b"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/handler.go: cmd/handler.go changed 5 times in last 90 days and 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 11 (its worst body is cmd.generateHTTPRoutesFile at line 501), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix(handler): entity names starting with W/R broke every generated handler\u201D; \u201Cfix: wire custom templates into generation, fix init-git race, add release script\u201D; \u201Cfix: swagger @Success annotations reference existing types\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 3 \u2014 ~60 generator bugs across all commands\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/handler.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/handler.go"},"region":{"startLine":501}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"287c89b7a690e4de19be51f2a407eb340c8ef42a85b2e11e88da950454040cfd"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/utils.go: cmd/utils.go changed 5 times in last 90 days and 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 11 (its worst body is cmd.writeGoFile at line 119), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: 5 real generator bugs found via exhaustive flag/docs validation pass\u201D; \u201Cfix: wire custom templates into generation, fix init-git race, add release script\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch \u2014 fix ~10 generator bugs across entities, CLI, mocks, DI and config\u201D; \u201Cfix: resolve audit issues #35\u2013#50 (generated code now compiles, vets and tests clean)\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/utils.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/utils.go"},"region":{"startLine":119}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6040a695aa940ce5b61f56d41b7f8a09400547c5dccd93f8971df5457439b4b1"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/init_project_files.go: cmd/init_project_files.go changed 5 times in last 90 days and 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 10 (its worst body is cmd.createGoMod at line 14), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: wire custom templates into generation, fix init-git race, add release script\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 3 \u2014 ~60 generator bugs across all commands\u201D; \u201Cfix(db): generate driver-correct DSN/env and register entities for auto-migration\u201D; \u201Cfix: address golangci-lint, nilaway, and gosec issues across codebase\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/init_project_files.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/init_project_files.go"},"region":{"startLine":14}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"8d6a78e6bd65eab4639b448b6d35c5fe057d6eae195d62a5b48a8cd55e8bb115"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/repository_other_db.go: cmd/repository_other_db.go changed 5 times in last 90 days and 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 2 (its worst body is cmd.generatePostgresJSONRepository at line 9), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 5 \u2014 grpc scaffold, middleware wiring, interfaces, elasticsearch reads, config port, messages dry-run\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 4 \u2014 repository constructor wiring, time.Time imports, error formatting, CI YAML\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 3 \u2014 ~60 generator bugs across all commands\u201D; \u201Cfix: address golangci-lint, nilaway, and gosec issues across codebase\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/repository_other_db.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/repository_other_db.go"},"region":{"startLine":9}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"51c7bfe9dd702aa74d75c2fcdebdfdcbc061994fcf1a6b9a2dd642754226d9e7"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/config_debug.go: cmd/config_debug.go changed 4 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 13 (its worst body is cmd.initializeConfig at line 151), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: getCurrentModuleName never read go.mod; docs coherence sweep\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 3 \u2014 ~60 generator bugs across all commands\u201D; \u201Cfix: resolve audit issues #35\u2013#50 (generated code now compiles, vets and tests clean)\u201D; \u201Cfix: address golangci-lint, nilaway, and gosec issues across codebase\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/config_debug.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/config_debug.go"},"region":{"startLine":151}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c702bbf21ad42d5cd3121c64458ad0ee32cc3e9bdb712ca44d349d598aaccc4f"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/field_validator.go: cmd/field_validator.go changed 4 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 12 (its worst body is FieldValidator.validateMapKeyType at line 256), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: 5 real generator bugs found via exhaustive flag/docs validation pass\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch \u2014 fix ~10 generator bugs across entities, CLI, mocks, DI and config\u201D; \u201Cfix: resolve audit issues #35\u2013#50 (generated code now compiles, vets and tests clean)\u201D; \u201Cfix: address golangci-lint, nilaway, and gosec issues across codebase\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/field_validator.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/field_validator.go"},"region":{"startLine":256}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ddc47a81986a81bec50a97843feda39ec5777c32024332b86b3df8adcb68d027"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/safety.go: cmd/safety.go changed 4 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 10 (its worst body is NameConflictDetector.ScanExistingEntities at line 271), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: 5 real generator bugs found via exhaustive flag/docs validation pass\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 3 \u2014 ~60 generator bugs across all commands\u201D; \u201Cfix: resolve audit issues #35\u2013#50 (generated code now compiles, vets and tests clean)\u201D; \u201Cfix: address golangci-lint, nilaway, and gosec issues across codebase\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/safety.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/safety.go"},"region":{"startLine":271}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"11e653f86d73e06ba3b70f70560c1f18c2c95fff2830a6351c2fad7754294fbc"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/messages.go: cmd/messages.go changed 4 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 6 (its worst body is cmd.generateUseCaseMessages at line 93), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 5 \u2014 grpc scaffold, middleware wiring, interfaces, elasticsearch reads, config port, messages dry-run\u201D; \u201Cfix: stabilization batch \u2014 fix ~10 generator bugs across entities, CLI, mocks, DI and config\u201D; \u201Cfix: resolve audit issues #35\u2013#50 (generated code now compiles, vets and tests clean)\u201D; \u201Cfix: address golangci-lint, nilaway, and gosec issues across codebase\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/messages.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/messages.go"},"region":{"startLine":93}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"eef4807fb5b9dcc60f158d12966e1e3a6edf43113865e73f574738fcb3e672cc"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/init_main_go.go: cmd/init_main_go.go changed 4 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 11 (its worst body is cmd.createMainGo at line 8), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix(db): generate driver-correct DSN/env and register entities for auto-migration\u201D; \u201Cfix: resolve audit issues #35\u2013#50 (generated code now compiles, vets and tests clean)\u201D; \u201Cfix: address golangci-lint, nilaway, and gosec issues across codebase\u201D; \u201Cfix: add nil checks in usecase Update methods, add ErrNotFound sentinel error\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/init_main_go.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/init_main_go.go"},"region":{"startLine":8}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b4e3063fe7d1606b6bf8bf2b2100bea00b07c07d516113a2cd20a4662895ff7b"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/interfaces.go: cmd/interfaces.go changed 3 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 6 (its worst body is cmd.generateRepositoryInterfaceFileWithFields at line 141), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 5 \u2014 grpc scaffold, middleware wiring, interfaces, elasticsearch reads, config port, messages dry-run\u201D; \u201Cfix: resolve audit issues #35\u2013#50 (generated code now compiles, vets and tests clean)\u201D; \u201Cfix: address golangci-lint, nilaway, and gosec issues across codebase\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/interfaces.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/interfaces.go"},"region":{"startLine":141}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"823951b875c31e4d92479177eae44e9da9e36dc0bd18d8123182156e04c46ecf"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/analyze_checks.go: cmd/analyze_checks.go changed 3 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 11 (its worst body is cmd.checkExportedFunctionsHaveDocs at line 407), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 3 \u2014 ~60 generator bugs across all commands\u201D; \u201Cfix: resolve audit issues #35\u2013#50 (generated code now compiles, vets and tests clean)\u201D; \u201Cfix: address golangci-lint, nilaway, and gosec issues across codebase\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/analyze_checks.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/analyze_checks.go"},"region":{"startLine":407}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"68180689c1503b7b2cabadd2171ed8fc80fe32ac2878ff8001071defdc865f4d"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: cmd/init_docker.go: cmd/init_docker.go changed 3 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 8 (its worst body is cmd.createMigrations at line 9), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: stabilization batch 3 \u2014 ~60 generator bugs across all commands\u201D; \u201Cfix: resolve audit issues #35\u2013#50 (generated code now compiles, vets and tests clean)\u201D; \u201Cfix: add nil checks in usecase Update methods, add ErrNotFound sentinel error\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- cmd/init_docker.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/init_docker.go"},"region":{"startLine":9}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"247eea83c6b795a1a186c11e16b5069162bd6e747018fd872ca14b8625334da4"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: internal/usecase/product_service.go: internal/usecase/product_service.go changed 3 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 7 (its worst body is productService.Update at line 41), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: address golangci-lint, nilaway, and gosec issues across codebase\u201D; \u201Cfix: address gosec warnings and update files\u201D; \u201Cfix: add nil checks in usecase Update methods, add ErrNotFound sentinel error\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- internal/usecase/product_service.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/usecase/product_service.go"},"region":{"startLine":41}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"a5d5539c2240d78b4b5bba340198cc19b94b3b3bb0feca8e4c7e1839780d829a"}},{"ruleId":"D15","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Repeated repair: internal/usecase/user_service.go: internal/usecase/user_service.go changed 3 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file\u0027s churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 7 (its worst body is userService.Update at line 41), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn \u00D7 complexity hotspot \u2014 the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: \u201Cfix: address golangci-lint, nilaway, and gosec issues across codebase\u201D; \u201Cfix: address gosec warnings and update files\u201D; \u201Cfix: add nil checks in usecase Update methods, add ErrNotFound sentinel error\u201D. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-21..2026-07-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with \u0060git log --since=\u00272026-04-21 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --until=\u00272026-07-20 09:13:50 -07:00\u0027 --full-history --no-merges -- internal/usecase/user_service.go\u0060: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each \u2014 a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/usecase/user_service.go"},"region":{"startLine":41}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9ad6e0b440b252641335af56fc390737b4826897053d7f7bdb2c7bb24fa9393b"}},{"ruleId":"D16","level":"note","message":{"text":"Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1: If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 19 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: cmd/analyze_checks.go, cmd/test_integration.go, cmd/repository_other_db.go, cmd/handler_other.go, cmd/init_project_files.go, cmd/repository_fields.go, cmd/init_main_go.go, cmd/middleware_templates.go (\u002B11 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f77e1fed0e18a29ee52ad6d98468c5a42d980a0e3ff1eedbca7524055ad56ad4"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Add fields based on entity structure \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":191}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f36a2d08ea8c9b2f6fcf7e31fc3b3c368f7ca6d5d7a087fc21ae6546a7cf5df3"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Add fields \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":210}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d09b565866084818e5721c394529ac9a92716cd218d5fbc5eedd37605a4b98e3"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Add fields \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":226}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c0d3ae0f69b88f679c69529e8cd3e59e17a737ad279c70e0cb0fc993fe04fed1"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Add fields \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":281}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"13670d4f25176ffcd45f62846ae86b4885b21a923dfc61baaed3c3f98dde1b2b"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Add fields \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":299}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fb0beb8f624ec631009994387fd33a293bedb4e90808f61b347f1d8025030b55"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Add fields \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":313}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0de32d5c61dd575c373af88b8e459c1e306b58f640f37a119cf4d1a28b91827c"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Add updated fields \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":217}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fe3cf4bd07f6f44a3f9fe6c75526fabf9b588bb67a8ae9a2da1162f37ab75221"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Add fields with variation \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":244}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4244abeb2efdaeb093c17dc29d33df00295a7b2b5a0b6e4e2d5d9ebefb153e73"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Add invalid data to trigger error \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":259}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"82772d95089f172f43bb27ee328f0be3f27505141eb370fd0fb1fe942c3b0125"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Add default field values for testing \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":344}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"aca64ced701a234d41d4f13fe48bd04723ba01d1bb1c04dc81600def7b05f4ff"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Implement field overrides \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":356}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5ac5cb02cc71d9ba630337ca02539911775ac331f81c82521edf73063a501e92"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Vary fixture data for each instance \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":370}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"baa74909200dbe5ea4919d4d9cd1330bd416648bda5081ac636a99bb9b40674b"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Add auto-migration for test entities \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":534}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"9a134b3549953afacfaa1bfd95694837a5bd144adb5d0051e04ac24f1eefc09c"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Add table cleanup based on entities \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":552}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"edb2f62c75b91f925e80decb7327c7348143a3c57eb1dc33693e39f1e5a2eb15"}},{"ruleId":"D17","level":"warning","message":{"text":"TodoComment: // TODO: Add seed data for tests \u2014 source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. \u0060// REF: #123\u0060), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"cmd/test_integration.go"},"region":{"startLine":605}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"722671c6ab1ae6aa17a193e5c3ab58b6f70b754f9a71ba185a5a23baeaabf8ee"}},{"ruleId":"D19","level":"note","message":{"text":"Documentation: no usage examples: The README contains no usage examples or a \u0027how to run it\u0027 section. Add a short runnable example showing how to invoke goca init and the first generated command, with output."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"README.md"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1355eb4e127a4bc9236772ce1c46f09510aa9286e7a06d1e47f308229df19049"}},{"ruleId":"D20","level":"note","message":{"text":"No ADRs found: No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (\u0060docs/adr/\u0060, \u0060docs/decisions/\u0060, \u0060adr/\u0060, \u0060docs/rfcs/\u0060, an \u0060ADR0001/\u0060 folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (\u0060docs/adr/use-postgres.md\u0060, \u0060docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md\u0060); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (\u00600001-use-postgres.md\u0060, \u0060adr-012-caching.md\u0060); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an \u0022Architecture Decision Record\u0022 heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these \u2014 unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings \u2014 is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in \u0060docs/adr/\u0060."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d2bea044ff79d7d275f5a91a6e2f548586178eaf480274c33960ad020c854631"}},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d5b8f11381d61a58459ffc7c595fd52d09c03c711894a63a9578043d2338412b"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-829","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"28b96cf1ea1146116a313f31be8553f9ceadb9d17f251ffc72bca8be29de5bd5"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-353","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7b9fac397d532b4044487b0558d26af709e316d389534cef12e64501dbc5929d"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-353","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0cc1d50d6d3be42411d202f2f0d59fdebd9fcee091ec545b828b5bcc55fbb2bd"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-353","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6d8e5626dcad9e406118f8ecefc48d831e459926a51b0d385b8d51d969c08cf8"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-353","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ade059454c8b17b5431691b9fba046db103d10e0dfd7c752640bc4595a13b5ca"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-353","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6ab88d9e173e6c9a9880c3281671adae28cb598cd4c8927786d16bcfb6b3ded0"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-353","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"693249723480b7d3690fbc9002e4acaa2fd5c4f5277d52948268b51530c89d1e"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-353","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ed6f7f9c7c66487bff3c29d3a006cbac6d0bba1975272d4d518a58edd59d7a41"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-353","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"f1b966c70d2e5f6ab697ac6d268d54938c60e802d8ea58ea6ff9cb7e10a35f70"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-78","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"40b13e661977ec383b3447ceb5c9f2b5ad4da373f334fdb358e33166ce854f36"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-78","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"957b150e90b8de065e3fab913d6db8aa84cc38085b4826b482eaabde0c4cf347"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-353","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"865c1256b0af6cac7fabd52ec1703a6840a81e82c2cc09619e5e78e47af02756"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-522","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-829","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"b923d2a6d4bf9f3d17a069114b8d29dce8e6bc49ce4ae2931de0efd9a515de40"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-353","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"97b57258955a0fc4f47e63d0fc206556b5a254d1f6e3a9013dc232bd414746bf"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-353","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3b05ba515a0129218f03788d09f94768f02609db43e2061d6ce787be3145aa87"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-353","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3d761d6efcc4814792be9d4903b3400ed51df4c6f5b97b516a31c150f5e7a3bb"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-89","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"warning","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"eebb293c03be664c4f35654c6a5c6a4148ccbb10eae66ba7644eb437878f95d6"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1104","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-1352","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"warning","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"63778fa624412affc09bbae17ed4e235deee47c1e8fbbd49594e08c2f223c987"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-522","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-552","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"warning","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5fca7eb1e7298a2615267821615aa5eeb20eb440796556617864883b1b1c5ded"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1104","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-1329","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"warning","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e98aa0ba6171e514f475168284d1cb56b33a2d6c51374f8bd32839accd7df187"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1104","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-1352","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"warning","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e17056b4a9be631ec40182cf52e6ac3c01170ca02d935e0bef3d7a8d6f302525"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1104","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},{"id":"CWE-1329","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D29","level":"warning","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4e343b3f5099a61d22f1caabfcbc173bbb41478197147f49c9f72ecf7702452e"},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-338","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}}]},{"ruleId":"D30","level":"warning","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"479b881820448ffc1c3d85ca9c6d3ff00e8ea78094d3888571a2638e4c25a935"}},{"ruleId":"D30","level":"warning","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"362d19fbc20680c130f6d3f829465778e97203407075f4ceb76a4cf0cc41a027"}},{"ruleId":"D30","level":"warning","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"76d999f7f0da1c7805a61d7a77ca6e9d78cdf7e7d953cafe7b73d81759ae1a99"}},{"ruleId":"D34","level":"note","message":{"text":"Orphaned files with no living knowledge: 7 of 66 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left \u2014 their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 66 of the 99 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each \u2014 most significant first: internal/testing/validator.go, cmd/template_generator.go, internal/testing/errors.go, internal/testing/cli.go, internal/handler/http/product_handler.go, internal/handler/http/order_handler.go, internal/handler/http/user_handler.go. Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ce861fd78f6935114d3a342cb90ad25870f984e1042954fcbbe27c0e23be3658"}},{"ruleId":"D36","level":"note","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1b213f6eedd4b140d0bc37bdf1496f72811a643f34064f12518b32e9e83bcfc7"}},{"ruleId":"D36","level":"note","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0e17f71490e4d120a48b2b2881ab866c93b272bef2febb673a3e8e42b2c288ab"}},{"ruleId":"D36","level":"note","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"eb00976a698a5d68999b7ee6d27206fd374e916853e7ff1ead5eed42386f043f"}},{"ruleId":"D36","level":"warning","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"90f83b4fa27db32740afe9540c905f3c0499caed87f61049a8a903ecc95b41c3"}},{"ruleId":"D36","level":"warning","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0752d0df7434000fcabf1048e2de30a7a1a8b982b3db9a19898c4dec199856b4"}},{"ruleId":"DM4","level":"note","message":{"text":"Anemic entity: Order: \u0060Order\u0060 is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) \u2014 the business logic lives in a service."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/domain/order.go"},"region":{"startLine":3}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"5fcf3ccc5456f3424eb0bee238f32d1d9f2030ce23b9ff93b8b86ba5859c5723"}},{"ruleId":"DM4","level":"note","message":{"text":"Anemic entity: Product: \u0060Product\u0060 is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) \u2014 the business logic lives in a service."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/domain/product.go"},"region":{"startLine":3}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c7f48cc08391661b95560cce8536444a1103fff082fd64f5ddad1b5a725b098e"}},{"ruleId":"DM5","level":"note","message":{"text":"Mutable entity: Order: \u0060Order\u0060 exposes publicly writable state (ID, CustomerID, Total, Status)."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/domain/order.go"},"region":{"startLine":3}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3531f37e1829728cfa42cf3efd6203fe0ffd7cb52cd135f039f1b15979356cc2"}},{"ruleId":"DM5","level":"note","message":{"text":"Mutable entity: Product: \u0060Product\u0060 exposes publicly writable state (ID, Name, Price, Description)."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/domain/product.go"},"region":{"startLine":3}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"19ac7f1ad0511350e638077685a696b93f2105522d4c6f3e49629f908613e6e0"}},{"ruleId":"DM5","level":"note","message":{"text":"Mutable entity: User: \u0060User\u0060 exposes publicly writable state (ID, Name, Email, Age, CreatedAt, UpdatedAt, and 1 more)."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"internal/domain/user.go"},"region":{"startLine":7}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"27fe3860af547a8593430778f7598d263b145fd6cfc1c508d8349d73ac84f599"}},{"ruleId":"M2","level":"note","message":{"text":"No ADRs: No Architecture Decision Records found \u2014 no conventional ADR directory, no numbered \u0060NNNN-title\u0060 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."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"670b3d6e36a756d63097d0dfbf90afd5fc761308800b9354894a07c3f4e4aa14"}},{"ruleId":"R1","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Type Safety: 0 typed \u00B7 5 plain JS \u2014 the untyped files are marketing/scripts/brand.mjs, marketing/scripts/commands-data.mjs, marketing/scripts/generate-command-videos.mjs, marketing/scripts/generate-commands.mjs, marketing/scripts/generate-video-frames.mjs."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"d00ee7953f55325a823d27e5db9657c80ca9b9861c0c0abf8fe487cd3fa586d3"}},{"ruleId":"R10","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block with local edits (85 matched lines \u00D7 2 locations): marketing/scripts/generate-command-videos.mjs:11 \u00B7 marketing/scripts/generate-video-frames.mjs:13 \u2014 the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited \u2014 861 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row\u0027s finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters \u2014 or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"marketing/scripts/generate-command-videos.mjs"},"region":{"startLine":11}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e61a2aa01653fa3a9872c93604480f33f065c54317a601481091841a029ee9a4"}},{"ruleId":"R10","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (9 lines \u00D7 3 locations): marketing/scripts/generate-commands.mjs:19 \u00B7 marketing/scripts/generate-commands.mjs:38 \u00B7 marketing/scripts/generate-commands.mjs:58 \u2014 all 3 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block \u2014 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 \u2014 the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"marketing/scripts/generate-commands.mjs"},"region":{"startLine":19}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"c68c9ee00852956fe5ec0648d43d85e2c94a5947a7d5d180b9ba70be8ccb63b2"}}],"taxonomies":[{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d","organization":"MITRE","informationUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/","isComprehensive":false,"shortDescription":{"text":"The MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)."},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1059","guid":"a2381a08-60f6-9554-a8b8-f3018cfaaca5","name":"Insufficient Technical Documentation","shortDescription":{"text":"Insufficient Technical Documentation"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1059.html"},{"id":"CWE-1104","guid":"4c918cb5-b2a6-6c55-9963-a44ee464305e","name":"CWE-1104","shortDescription":{"text":"CWE-1104"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1104.html"},{"id":"CWE-1329","guid":"f70f1c3f-4ccf-cb5e-bdd3-03ba4868d36d","name":"CWE-1329","shortDescription":{"text":"CWE-1329"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1329.html"},{"id":"CWE-1352","guid":"5257f322-5cfc-6b52-bedd-0b9a526b4c7d","name":"CWE-1352","shortDescription":{"text":"CWE-1352"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1352.html"},{"id":"CWE-1357","guid":"e4d2e772-757e-0a5c-bd7d-77052949d866","name":"Reliance on Insufficiently Trustworthy Component","shortDescription":{"text":"Reliance on Insufficiently Trustworthy Component"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1357.html"},{"id":"CWE-1395","guid":"800e09e7-c11a-8654-9fa6-86f398995fed","name":"Dependency on Vulnerable Third-Party Component","shortDescription":{"text":"Dependency on Vulnerable Third-Party Component"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1395.html"},{"id":"CWE-259","guid":"ae9ad959-fbb6-9d5e-892d-3dca66da0b69","name":"Use of Hard-coded Password","shortDescription":{"text":"Use of Hard-coded Password"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/259.html"},{"id":"CWE-338","guid":"e89b7604-c3f7-8b53-bc8c-4d4718c28617","name":"CWE-338","shortDescription":{"text":"CWE-338"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/338.html"},{"id":"CWE-353","guid":"09d7e902-d4ee-f05d-ae6c-0a1554d0c18f","name":"CWE-353","shortDescription":{"text":"CWE-353"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/353.html"},{"id":"CWE-494","guid":"b8a65e0d-e459-4a55-a931-fc1136482375","name":"Download of Code Without Integrity Check","shortDescription":{"text":"Download of Code Without Integrity Check"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/494.html"},{"id":"CWE-506","guid":"401d6455-56e3-0552-9a39-f77461673e3f","name":"CWE-506","shortDescription":{"text":"CWE-506"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/506.html"},{"id":"CWE-522","guid":"71fb233e-ce6a-ae57-9419-ef8373540b09","name":"CWE-522","shortDescription":{"text":"CWE-522"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/522.html"},{"id":"CWE-552","guid":"3492436b-eca2-9c54-9ba3-5dade427c903","name":"CWE-552","shortDescription":{"text":"CWE-552"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/552.html"},{"id":"CWE-77","guid":"332c8ade-6612-9f56-a06b-d8d90b1a8750","name":"Command Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"Command Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html"},{"id":"CWE-78","guid":"2e31ceaf-c7ae-2e5e-9661-cfb1362789cf","name":"OS Command Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"OS Command Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/78.html"},{"id":"CWE-79","guid":"fd45580b-e8c4-fc5e-8c2f-aa8fab0b4dbf","name":"Cross-site Scripting (XSS)","shortDescription":{"text":"Cross-site Scripting (XSS)"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html"},{"id":"CWE-798","guid":"5e8f057d-fee3-995a-a0cb-9fc5b0d174d1","name":"Use of Hard-coded Credentials","shortDescription":{"text":"Use of Hard-coded Credentials"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/798.html"},{"id":"CWE-829","guid":"13c33925-97fb-5a5e-b40c-56d328b8a4d7","name":"CWE-829","shortDescription":{"text":"CWE-829"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/829.html"},{"id":"CWE-89","guid":"6d08fdad-37eb-c150-bbf0-d7d946863407","name":"SQL Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"SQL Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/89.html"},{"id":"CWE-937","guid":"16f316ae-415c-b354-a59b-1f7905f756e9","name":"Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities","shortDescription":{"text":"Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/937.html"},{"id":"CWE-94","guid":"75e7f50c-6c2f-dd52-bf40-bf6c52b861fd","name":"Code Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/94.html"}]}],"properties":{"codehealthPublication":{"public":true,"notice":"This is the PUBLIC form of this artifact. Findings are listed in full, but the details of SECURITY findings \u2014 which rule fired, in which file, on which line, and how to fix it \u2014 are deliberately withheld, and any secret-scanner results are excluded entirely. Where detail is absent here it was REMOVED FOR PUBLICATION; it is not missing from the analysis. The complete artifact is available from the repository owner.","securityFindingsRedacted":32,"secretScannerRunsExcluded":0}},"redactionTokens":["A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."]}]}