Public report of schollz/croc, published 24 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of
findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known
vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive reportMeasured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey →
Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 24 October 2026, 00:25 UTC · Survey ID cd_6f9f934cdeb444c18dc9b2981ede5e3a
schollz/croc
Measured 24 October 2026, 00:22 UTC, at code version 9c28c3b
A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.
Code coverage is not measured: JavaScript/TypeScript suite (CouldNotMeasureNoCollector).
CAI scoreAdequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Down 1 since the last survey
The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.
A medium codebase: 40,729 lines of product code in 2 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.7 person-years · Weakest lens: Accessibility, 64
Findings by how serious they are
59 critical365 serious33 minor
14 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
24 October 2026, 00:22 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number
together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee
the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that
implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.
The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸
82of 85 dimensions measured by tools. The other 3 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
437of 457 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 20 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
85dimensions across 7 lenses, read from 40,729 lines of product code in 2 projects.
schollz/croc scores 66 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while three of its seven lenses score higher still: Performance at 84, rated Strong, and Architecture at 84 and Security and Compliance at 81, both rated Adequate.
The score is lower than those three because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Accessibility, which scores 64 and is rated Adequate. Its Visual & motion safety dimension scores 3.5 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Accessibility can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 8 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning and to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. The weakest lenses score close to each other, so improving any of them moves the score.
59 findings are critical: 47 in Static Analysis (SAST), eight in Secret Scanning, three in Dependency Vulnerabilities and one in Forms & labels.
Watchdog couldn't measure 13 dimensions in this code, among them Internal API Consistency, Navigability and Data Protection, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 40,729 lines, which would take an estimated 0.7 person-years, around €96,000, to rebuild.
A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.
How the score is built: what each lens counts forThe lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement web/src/styles.css
Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.
Fixed since the last survey: 59 findings
These 59 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 10 October 2026, and are gone from this one.
Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function run (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 23) web/src/protocol/ssh.ts
Large Files · web/src/App.tsx: 2281 lines of code web/src/App.tsx
Large Files · web/src/Blog.tsx: 1274 lines of code web/src/Blog.tsx
Large Files · web/src/protocol/stored.ts: 958 lines of code web/src/protocol/stored.ts
Large Files · web/src/protocol/client.ts: 888 lines of code web/src/protocol/client.ts
Large Files · web/src/protocol/storage.ts: 495 lines of code web/src/protocol/storage.ts
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/public/croc-worker.js
Cancellation propagation · Async function without AbortSignal: compileWasmModule web/src/wasm/client.ts
Rebuild cost: about €96,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€32,000 to €160,000, for 530 to 1,681 hours of work, about 0.7 person-years for 1 to 2 engineers
Difficulty of the problem
Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor
×0.9 at a score of 66. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size
Medium: 40,729 lines of product code
How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.
Top priorities
The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.
1
Resolve the 8 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2).
Raises the score by about 2 points · Low effort · Secret Scanning
2
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 2 points · Low effort · ADR Quality
3
Record your significant design decisions.
Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.
Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €96,000 to build again, about 0.7 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Accessibility, at 64 (Adequate). Accessibility is about whether the interface is built so that everyone can use it, including people who can't see the screen or can't use a mouse. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Accessibility also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Accessibility grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Accessibility actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 8 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 2 points for low effort, because it clears the 8 Secret Scanning findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort
What hard-to-read code costs each year · Cost
Four dimensions measure how easy the code is to work in: two measure how tangled its logic is, one how much of it is copied, and one how well each part sticks to a single job. In this codebase they average 6.2 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and Watchdog estimates the extra work at 4% to 10% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 90,707 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 367,867 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 41.3 to 247.6 engineer-days a year, and it grows as more code changes.
How this is estimated: The number of changed lines is measured from the history of the code. The rest rests on two assumptions of Watchdog's own: code scoring 8 out of 10 or more adds no extra work, and each point below 8 adds 2.5% to 5.6% to every change; and an engineer changes 150 to 400 lines in a day. The result is a range for planning, not a measurement.
Based on: Cyclomatic Complexity · Cognitive Complexity · Code Duplication · Cohesion (LCOM4) · the code's change history
What to do: Start with the files listed under Churn × Complexity Hotspots, which change often and are hard to read, because that is where the extra work is paid most often.
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.
68 modules, with 43 dependencies between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.
The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 28 more are left out to keep it readable.
Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/message uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/comm, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/comm can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/message, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/message can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/comm.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/message uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/storeclient uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/receivefs, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/receivefs can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/storeclient, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/storeclient can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/receivefs.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/storeclient uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/storeclient uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/storecrypto, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/storecrypto can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/storeclient, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/storeclient can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/storecrypto.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/storeclient uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/tcp uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/comm, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/comm can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/tcp, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/tcp can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/comm.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/tcp uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/utils uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/receivefs, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/receivefs can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/utils, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/utils can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/receivefs.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/utils uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/webcli uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/cli, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/cli can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/webcli, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/webcli can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/cli.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/webcli uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/webrelay uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/store, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/store can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/webrelay, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/webrelay can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/store.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/webrelay uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/web/sshwasm uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/sshclient, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/sshclient can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/web/sshwasm, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/web/sshwasm can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/sshclient.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/web/sshwasm uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
web.src uses web.src.protocol.hash, so a change to web.src.protocol.hash can break web.src, while a change to web.src can't break web.src.protocol.hash.
Position
Below the diagonal: web.src uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
web.src uses web.src.protocol.types, so a change to web.src.protocol.types can break web.src, while a change to web.src can't break web.src.protocol.types.
Position
Below the diagonal: web.src uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
web.src.protocol uses web.src.protocol.engine, so a change to web.src.protocol.engine can break web.src.protocol, while a change to web.src.protocol can't break web.src.protocol.engine.
Position
Below the diagonal: web.src.protocol uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
web.src.protocol uses web.src.protocol.hash, so a change to web.src.protocol.hash can break web.src.protocol, while a change to web.src.protocol can't break web.src.protocol.hash.
Position
Below the diagonal: web.src.protocol uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
web.src.protocol uses web.src.protocol.metadata, so a change to web.src.protocol.metadata can break web.src.protocol, while a change to web.src.protocol can't break web.src.protocol.metadata.
Position
Below the diagonal: web.src.protocol uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
web.src.protocol uses web.src.protocol.stored-crypto, so a change to web.src.protocol.stored-crypto can break web.src.protocol, while a change to web.src.protocol can't break web.src.protocol.stored-crypto.
Position
Below the diagonal: web.src.protocol uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
web.src.protocol uses web.src.protocol.transport, so a change to web.src.protocol.transport can break web.src.protocol, while a change to web.src.protocol can't break web.src.protocol.transport.
Position
Below the diagonal: web.src.protocol uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
web.src.protocol uses web.src.protocol.types, so a change to web.src.protocol.types can break web.src.protocol, while a change to web.src.protocol can't break web.src.protocol.types.
Position
Below the diagonal: web.src.protocol uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
web.src.protocol.client uses web.src.protocol.transport, so a change to web.src.protocol.transport can break web.src.protocol.client, while a change to web.src.protocol.client can't break web.src.protocol.transport.
Position
Below the diagonal: web.src.protocol.client uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
web.src.protocol.client uses web.src.protocol.types, so a change to web.src.protocol.types can break web.src.protocol.client, while a change to web.src.protocol.client can't break web.src.protocol.types.
Position
Below the diagonal: web.src.protocol.client uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
web.src.protocol.operations uses web.src.protocol.pake, so a change to web.src.protocol.pake can break web.src.protocol.operations, while a change to web.src.protocol.operations can't break web.src.protocol.pake.
Position
Below the diagonal: web.src.protocol.operations uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
web.src.protocol.storage uses web.src.protocol.sha256, so a change to web.src.protocol.sha256 can break web.src.protocol.storage, while a change to web.src.protocol.storage can't break web.src.protocol.sha256.
Position
Below the diagonal: web.src.protocol.storage uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
web.src.protocol.storage uses web.src.protocol.types, so a change to web.src.protocol.types can break web.src.protocol.storage, while a change to web.src.protocol.storage can't break web.src.protocol.types.
Position
Below the diagonal: web.src.protocol.storage uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
web.src.public-relay uses web.src.protocol.types, so a change to web.src.protocol.types can break web.src.public-relay, while a change to web.src.public-relay can't break web.src.protocol.types.
Position
Below the diagonal: web.src.public-relay uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/sshclient, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/sshclient can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/sshclient.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/codephrase, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/codephrase can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/codephrase.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/comm, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/comm can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/comm.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/pakekey, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/pakekey can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/pakekey.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/message, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/message can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/message.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/tailcat uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/tailcat, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/tailcat can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/sshshare.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/tailcat uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/tailcattransport uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/tailcat, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/tailcat can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/tailcattransport, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/tailcattransport can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/tailcat.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/tailcattransport uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/comm, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/comm can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/comm.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/receivefs, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/receivefs can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/receivefs.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/message, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/message can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/message.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/tailcattransport, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/tailcattransport can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/tailcattransport.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/cli, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/cli can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/internal/cli.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/publicrelay, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/publicrelay can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/publicrelay.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/storeclient, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/storeclient can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/storeclient.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli uses github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc, so a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc can break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli, while a change to github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli can't break github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/croc.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/schollz/croc/v11/src/cli uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health · 66% · Adequate · gated by D1, D2, R3 ·
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A05:2025 — Injection
61
High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures
11
High / Critical
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures
8
High / Critical
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration
2
Medium
Roadmap
Immediately resolve the eight leaked secrets in blog-posts, operations, and engine files to secure the codebase. Establish architectural decision records by documenting key design choices in a dedicated folder to improve long-term maintainability. Implement visual and motion safety standards by fixing focus styles, respecting reduced motion preferences, and correcting low-contrast colors. Finally, enforce accessibility throughout the development pipeline by integrating linting, testing, and CI checks to prevent future regressions.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 8 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2).
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this
survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.
Critical — 59
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a
missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here
tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Serious — 365
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades
the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to
carry for two years either.
Minor — 33
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 14
Something this survey could not settle
from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no
positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves
nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean
result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither
rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each
one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 82 of 85 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 85 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 437 of 457 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D10 Test Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 182 test(s) behind this row are the ones the JavaScript/TypeScript census could read, and this repository also carries at least 84 test source file(s) (.go) that it cannot: it reads JavaScript/TypeScript test declarations off disk, so a JUnit/pytest-style suite is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a Go module (REDACTED/go.sum), but the licence verdict published here was taken over its npm package dependencies. Nothing was read about its Go dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (167 contributor(s) across 2542 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 85% of the history; the other 166 hold 0.1% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (REDACTED), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs`, `web/src/protocol/codec.ts`, `web/src/protocol/relay.ts`, `web/src/protocol/stored.ts` produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via REDACTED (REDACTED). docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release.
Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit:
https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check decides whether a handler's mutation is safe to re-run by recognising its persistence writes (a database save, a repository write, an event publish) and its guards. Those markers are .NET member names, so in this repository's language a write such as `repository.save(order)` is not recognised and a same-named call on an unrelated library type could be. The handlers were found; their idempotency was neither confirmed nor ruled out.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and this repository's Go, Python is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and this repository's Go, Python is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X3 Exception handling — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 17 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 57.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, Python and PHP make no call through a named logger, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (REDACTED, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
67 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was App.App at 188. A further 2 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being cli.updateGuidance at 17 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.
+ 62 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 1 body over 60 down to 60 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with App.App (cyclomatic 188). — Refactoring it lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 2.9 to about 5.2/10.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 88 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 1 body over 120 down to 120 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with croc.GetFilesInfoWithExactExclusionsContext (cognitive 130). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 2.0 to about 2.2/10.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 16 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Blog.tsx (5), cli.go (4), client.ts (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
Resolve the 12 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with REDACTED, App.tsx, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with REDACTED (4), staged_transport.go, tailcat_negotiation.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
11 duplicated block group(s) detected. Measured on part of this repository only: .ts (23% of production source) was not exposed to THIS dimension's token comparison and is not in this count; duplication there is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream.
+ 5 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with cli.go, main.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with cli.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
2 production modules (npm+Go), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 0 module(s) off the main sequence.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
D9 · Test Distribution9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
761 test methods: 734 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 27 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 182 `it`/`test` case(s) across 34 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only. The Python suite contributes 9 test function(s) across 2 file(s) declaring at least one — every `def test…` in a file pytest or unittest would collect, which is those frameworks' own definition of a case; a parametrize table counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is read from file names and paths only. The Go suite contributes 570 test case(s) across 78 `_test.go` file(s) declaring at least one — every `func Test…(t *testing.T)` that `go test` would collect, plus the suite methods a testify-style runner reaches; a table-driven case list counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is INFERRED from file names, paths and build constraints, not declared: 0 of those file(s) use Go's external test package (`package x_test`), which is a visibility boundary rather than a pyramid tier and was not read as one.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
1 skipped (1 with a documented reason), 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 182 tests. Measured on the JavaScript/TypeScript suite only — at least 84 test source file(s) (.go) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.
Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.
Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.
0 flaky across 2 measured tier(s). JavaScript/TypeScript (vitest via `npm ci --ignore-scripts` in web/ (216 tests)): measured (0 flaky); Go (github.com/schollz/croc/v11): measured (0 flaky).
What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.
Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.
1 outdated, 0 author-deprecated direct Go module(s), 3 pinning or checksum defect(s). 30 of 30 direct requirement(s) were graded against proxy.golang.org (0 not served there, 6 publishing no tagged release to be behind). Whether any of these modules is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — proxy.golang.org publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: that is a source question, not a registry one. Known CVEs in this module graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED and go.sum there.
Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: github.com/magisterquis/connectproxy · ×3
Outdated: tailscale.com
What to do
Resolve the 3 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
Resolve the 8 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).
Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
0 of 12 shipped npm package(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from registry.npmjs.org over the 12 production dependency(ies) this repository's committed lockfile resolves, across 1 product package.json manifest(s). Its 14 `devDependencies` declaration(s) are excluded: a consumer installs none of them. ★ DEPTH: this is the DIRECT production set the lockfile resolves, NOT the transitive closure — only one of the four lock dialects this pass reads states a full graph, so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is outside this verdict, exactly as the JVM arm's declaration-site verdict is. ★ Each licence is the one the registry publishes for the package's CURRENT release rather than for the pinned version, which is the same caveat the Hex and RubyGems arms carry. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's npm package dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Go module (REDACTED/go.sum), and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
Top hotspots: web/src/App.tsx (42×188=7896); src/cli/cli.go (40×60=2400); REDACTED (36×53=1908) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: main.go (3 of 5 changes were fixes)
Hotspot: web/src/App.tsx · ×21web/src/App.tsx:663
Repeated repair: main.gomain.go:18
What to do
Resolve the 21 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with App.tsx, cli.go, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (21 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with main.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
3 deducted task-comment markers across 40729 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
TodoComment · ×3REDACTED:3134
What to do
Resolve the 3 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with REDACTED (2), options.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
The repository's root README is clear and complete for an open-source project: it states what croc does (p2p file transfer with PAKE encryption across any two computers), lists the features it supports, and shows a sponsor button. It also documents installation (curl + bash, no-install browser-only) and a full build/usage outline. The READMEs of each subdirectory document only their own directories (packaging/linux, web client, internal/cli framework, distributions recipes) without referencing the root overview or contributing guidance, which is consistent with the repository's single-root structure. Testing documentation is thorough for a repository-level test guide: it describes send-and-receive-side update-checks with an override that waits up to two seconds and reports whether a newer release is available (with the exact command), local-reconnect-interruptions in three terminals with build/run commands, data-channel and control-channel drop tests, and post-drop inspection. It is well-structured and clearly explains what each test does.
Documentation: no project overview · ×2README.md
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
1 of 2 build units (Go, npm) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
What to do
Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
61 finding(s): 0 critical, 47 high, 9 medium, 5 low. 46 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 7 file(s) — `croc-entrypoint.sh` (line 7, line 26), `web/e2e/native-primitives.spec.ts` (line 3), `web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs` (line 19), `web/src/protocol/client.test.ts` (line 55), `web/src/protocol/codec.ts` (line 57), … (+2 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 2 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 6 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 46 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (46 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.
Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.
Resolve the 3 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Resolve the 3 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Medium vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Resolve the 2 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 96 of the 150 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.
Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.
What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.
Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.
What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.
Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.
AC1 · Text alternatives10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Accessibility — Whether non-text content carries a text alternative — img/area/input[type=image] have alt, a meaningful svg has a title or aria-label, video has a captions track, and object/embed/canvas have a name or fallback content. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: every img/area/input[type=image] checked for alt, svg[role=img] for a title/aria-label, video for a captions <track>. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.
Coverage: Population: image/media elements — img, area, input[type=image], svg, video, object, embed, canvas — across the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and dynamic-attribute elements are skipped. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is NOT read by any producer, so it contributes no element to this population; where such a frontend is present the card discloses it as an analyzer gap rather than scoring around it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC2 · Forms & labels7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.
Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
This control has no associated label. Add a <label htmlFor> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. — web/src/App.tsx:1359
What to do
Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.
Coverage: Population: the PARSED MARKUP documents (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx). The page-level checks — lang, title, single main landmark — fire ONCE PER FULL DOCUMENT (an <html> root) and never on a partial or component fragment, so a repo of fragments is assessed only on the per-element checks (heading order, table headers, iframe titles, meta-refresh, zoom). Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no element the repo's own CSS styles `cursor: pointer` without giving it any of the three, no unfocusable element whose only binding is a mouse enter/leave pair or a double-click, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor, no placeholder-href (#/javascript) link acting as a button. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.
Coverage: Population: elements that pose a keyboard-semantics question, in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) — a non-natively-interactive element carrying a click handler, a double-click or hover enter/leave binding, a pointer-only gesture on a tabindex="0" element, or `cursor: pointer` from the repo's own CSS; an href-less or placeholder-href (#, javascript:) anchor; and any element with a positive tabindex. Natively interactive elements used correctly (<button>, <a href>, form controls) are NOT in the population — there is nothing to judge — so a page of nothing but correct controls gives AC4 nothing to measure. Keyboard reachability is judged from the markup, never from a rendered page. ★ An interactive element declared in a tagged-template (html`…`) or hyperscript frontend is NOT in this population — no producer reads either — so an empty population is reported as an analyzer gap, never as "this repository has no interactive elements".
Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.
Coverage: Population: elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) that carry a role or an aria-* attribute; roles and token values are checked against the ARIA enums exhaustively within that set. An expression-valued (dynamic) role or aria-* value is skipped rather than guessed, and markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.
Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
`.ssh-code-input input:focus-visible` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — web/src/styles.css:459
What to do
Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.
Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.
Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.
No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 9 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
What to do
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y, then assert with vitest-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.
Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').
Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
README advertises a Flutter app, but no Flutter/Dart project exists — searched for: `flutter`, `pubspec`, `dart`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (package.json and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, REDACTED); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:212
packaging/README.md documents the environment variable `GOBIN`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — packaging/README.md:48
internal/cli/README.md names `github.com/schollz/cli/v2`, but no file or folder `github.com/schollz/cli/v2` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — internal/cli/README.md:3
What to do
Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a Flutter app, but no Flutter/Dart project exists; packaging/README.md documents the environment variable `GOBIN`, but no code, script or configuration file names it; internal/cli/README.md names `github.com/schollz/cli/v2`, but no file or folder `github.com/schollz/cli/v2` exists.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 40797 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Dependabot is configured but does not watch `npm` — add that `package-ecosystem` entry to REDACTED so those dependencies get the same automatic update and advisory pressure as the ones it already covers.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
The changelog this check read carries 1 versioned entry, against a bar of 3. Counted as either the distinct `x.y.z` versions it names (a link's target is not counted) or its version-shaped section headings (`## [1.2.0]`, `## V14.x.x`, `## Updates in 8.0.x`), whichever is the larger — so a log sectioned by minor series counts its sections, not its individual patch numbers. Entries recorded somewhere this check does not read — release notes generated at tag time from a generator config it did not recognise, or a log kept outside the repository — are not counted here, and this row is about what is re-findable in the tree rather than about how often you release.
What to do
Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.
Method: Source scan: outbound HTTP clients and what bounds them — resilience handlers (Polly, AddStandardResilienceHandler) on .NET; on Go, the JVM, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Elixir, Swift, Dart and Erlang, a timeout, deadline, retry or breaker beside each call, or a process-wide client default (a framework-wide deadline such as Drupal core's, Laravel's or actix's awc counts). Exhaustive, deterministic.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.
Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.
Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
What to do
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 34 use(s) across 30,583 production line(s) (~1.1/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Go: on hot paths, reuse buffers and objects through sync.Pool, preallocate slices and maps with make([]T, 0, n) / make(map[K]V, n), size builders with Grow, append with strconv.Append*, and reslice with buf[:0] instead of allocating anew.
Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.
Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R1 · Type Safety9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.
Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.
What to do
Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
React / JS · Code Health — Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386): a block is reported only where its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or were renamed as they were pasted but kept most of their constants, and where the copies carry enough code to stand on their own or the copied extent reaches 30 lines — so a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are both found and deliberately not reported, and a clean R10 is not a claim that nothing was copied.
Method: Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Masking finds the candidates; a block is reported when its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or when a renamed copy still agrees on most of its constants, AND the copies carry enough code to stand on their own — or when the copied extent reaches 30 lines. So a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are deliberately not counted. Deterministic.
web/src/protocol/client.ts:393 · web/src/protocol/client.ts:727 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 622 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's 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 — 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. — web/src/protocol/client.ts:393
web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:72 · web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:134 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:72
web/src/protocol/framing.ts:20 · web/src/protocol/framing.ts:58 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 140 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's 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 — 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. — web/src/protocol/framing.ts:20
web/src/Blog.tsx:869 · web/src/Blog.tsx:1273 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — web/src/Blog.tsx:869
REDACTED:77 · web/src/wasm/ssh-client.ts:182 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — REDACTED:77
web/src/protocol/storage.ts:142 · web/src/protocol/storage.ts:190 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 97 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's 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 — 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. — web/src/protocol/storage.ts:142
REDACTED:27 · web/src/protocol/sha256.ts:25 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 96 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's 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 — 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. — REDACTED:27
web/src/App.tsx:775 · web/src/Blog.tsx:376 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — web/src/App.tsx:775
web/src/App.tsx:942 · web/src/App.tsx:955 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — web/src/App.tsx:942
web/src/Blog.tsx:789 · web/src/Blog.tsx:818 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — web/src/Blog.tsx:789
web/src/protocol/client.ts:229 · web/src/protocol/stored.ts:306 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 81 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's 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 — 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. — web/src/protocol/client.ts:229
web/src/protocol/compression.ts:16 · web/src/protocol/stored.ts:731 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 60 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's 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 — 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. — web/src/protocol/compression.ts:16
web/src/protocol/stored-crypto.ts:195 · web/src/protocol/stored-crypto.ts:216 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 53 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's 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 — 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. — web/src/protocol/stored-crypto.ts:195
web/src/App.tsx:1559 · web/src/stored-ui.tsx:91 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — web/src/App.tsx:1559
web/src/protocol/hash.ts:56 · web/src/public-relay.ts:88 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 65 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's 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 — 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. — web/src/protocol/hash.ts:56
web/src/protocol/sha256.ts:97 · web/src/protocol/storage.ts:34 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — web/src/protocol/sha256.ts:97
web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:169 · web/src/Blog.tsx:138 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:169
web/src/App.tsx:690 · web/src/App.tsx:709 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — web/src/App.tsx:690
REDACTED:76 · REDACTED:97 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — REDACTED:76
web/src/Blog.tsx:775 · web/src/Blog.tsx:807 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — web/src/Blog.tsx:775
web/src/App.tsx:1379 · web/src/App.tsx:1716 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — web/src/App.tsx:1379
REDACTED:107 · web/src/public-relay.ts:95 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 50 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's 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 — 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. — REDACTED:107
web/src/Blog.tsx:734 · web/src/Blog.tsx:1218 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — web/src/Blog.tsx:734
What to do
Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.
React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.
Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.
App has cyclomatic complexity 100 and cognitive complexity 84; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/App.tsx:663
sendFiles has cyclomatic complexity 33 and cognitive complexity 43; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/protocol/client.ts:370
receiveFiles has cyclomatic complexity 31 and cognitive complexity 40; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/protocol/client.ts:718
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 28 and cognitive complexity 29; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/Blog.tsx:216
validateSenderInfo has cyclomatic complexity 27 and cognitive complexity 34; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/protocol/metadata.ts:148
update has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 19; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/progress.ts:32
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 22; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/wasm/ssh-client.ts:61
restoreStoredUpload has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 20; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/App.tsx:284
validateSSHOffer has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/protocol/ssh.ts:90
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 14 and cognitive complexity 18; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/Blog.tsx:351
ProgressBlock has cyclomatic complexity 14 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/App.tsx:352
BlogVisualCard has cyclomatic complexity 14 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/Blog.tsx:677
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 23; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/protocol/transport.ts:41
BlogBlockView has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/Blog.tsx:1001
SSHPanel has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/SSHPanel.tsx:44
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 9; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/protocol/stored-crypto.ts:98
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 20; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/blog-posts.test.ts:11
responseError has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/src/protocol/stored.ts:224
What to do
Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R3 · Large Files3.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.
Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.
REDACTED has 2126 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — REDACTED:1
web/src/App.tsx has 1948 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — web/src/App.tsx:1
web/src/Blog.tsx has 1258 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — web/src/Blog.tsx:1
web/src/protocol/stored.ts has 1087 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — web/src/protocol/stored.ts:1
web/src/protocol/client.ts has 909 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — web/src/protocol/client.ts:1
web/src/protocol/storage.ts has 568 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — web/src/protocol/storage.ts:1
web/src/protocol/ssh.ts has 402 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — web/src/protocol/ssh.ts:1
What to do
Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R4 · Test Coverage8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.
Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.
No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×5) — web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:1, web/scripts/build-wasm.mjs:1, web/public/croc-ssh-worker.js:1, …
What to do
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
React / JS · Readiness — How outdated the npm dependencies are (a maturity signal). JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities).
Method: npm dependency staleness from manifest/registry metadata (a maturity signal; JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30, which answers dependency vulnerabilities for every ecosystem). Deterministic.
What to do
Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R6 · Tooling6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each package.json script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.
Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.
test ✓ · lint ✗ · typecheck ✓ — read from this repository's package.json scripts and corroborated against its CI workflows. A script counts when its name or command matches the step: `test` for the suite, `lint` or `prettier` for linting, `typecheck`/`type-check`/`tsc` for type checking. ✗ therefore means no script or CI step under those names was found, NOT that the step is absent from your pipeline — a task invoked by a runner this check does not read, or named something else entirely, is not seen and is worth confirming before acting on a cross. A ✓ means the wiring is DECLARED — a script or CI step under those names exists. It is not a statement that the step passes, or that it runs at all: nothing here installs a dependency or executes a suite.
What to do
Add eslint as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R7 · Dead Code9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).
Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.
Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal. (×2) — web/src/protocol/stored.ts:203, web/src/protocol/stored.ts:1140
Nothing in its class reads or assigns this private field (for a constructor parameter property: it is stored and never read), and no string key or test reaches it by name. Remove it, or use it where it was meant to take effect. — web/src/protocol/client.ts:591
What to do
Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.
Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.
Declared in web/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
What to do
Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.
Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.
Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.
The function passed to `new Promise(…)` is `async`. The constructor ignores what its executor returns, so anything this executor throws — every throw inside an `async` function, including after an `await` — rejects a Promise nobody holds instead of the one being constructed: the outer Promise never settles, whoever awaits it hangs, and the error is reported nowhere. If the body needs `await`, it does not need `new Promise` at all: make the enclosing function `async` and `return` the value (or `throw`) directly. If it wraps a callback API, keep the executor synchronous — call the API and `resolve`/`reject` from its callback — and do the awaiting outside it. — web/scripts/benchmark-engine.mjs:135
Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether functions that make a cancellable request accept or pass on a context.Context or an AbortSignal (adoption curve).
Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same question: every named async function that itself makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (global `fetch`, axios and its file-local instances, ky, ofetch) counts, and it is compliant when its parameters or body name a signal or it hands one of its own parameters to the request as options; signatures a framework fixes (JSX event handlers, route and lifecycle exports, request-first handlers, `override`, `'use server'` modules, TanStack `mutationFn`) are exempt unless they take a signal. Deterministic, adoption percentage.
Only 37/39 functions that make a cancellable request (fetch, axios, ky, ofetch; net/http, net.Dial) accept a context.Context or an AbortSignal or pass one on, so a request keeps running after whatever wanted it has given up — a page navigated away from, a cancelled request, a shutdown, an expired deadline. Take a `signal` (Go: `ctx context.Context`) and hand it to the request; where nothing could ever cancel the call, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against how the function is used.
`LocalIP` calls `net.Dial(…)` but takes no context.Context and reaches none its caller controls, so its caller cannot cancel the request once it has started. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it: `http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, …)`, `(&net.Dialer{}).DialContext(ctx, …)`. — REDACTED:380
`FindOpenPorts` calls `net.DialTimeout(…)` but takes no context.Context and reaches none its caller controls, so its caller cannot cancel the request once it has started. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it: `http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, …)`, `(&net.Dialer{}).DialContext(ctx, …)`. — REDACTED:640
What to do
Thread a context.Context or an AbortSignal through functions that make requests, so the work stops when its caller gives up.
Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.
Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped5.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.
Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
`escapeHTML(absoluteURL(entry.image))` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the start of a URL attribute, where it chooses the scheme through markup built here with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. HTML encoding does not help here — a `javascript:` URL contains nothing it changes; allow only http(s) or a relative path. — web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:234
`escapeHTML(canonicalURL)` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the start of a URL attribute, where it chooses the scheme through markup this function returns with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. HTML encoding does not help here — a `javascript:` URL contains nothing it changes; allow only http(s) or a relative path. — web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:245
`escapeHTML(metadata.site.authorUrl)` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the start of a URL attribute, where it chooses the scheme through markup this function returns with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. HTML encoding does not help here — a `javascript:` URL contains nothing it changes; allow only http(s) or a relative path. — web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:246
`escapeHTML(imageURL)` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the start of a URL attribute, where it chooses the scheme through markup this function returns with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. HTML encoding does not help here — a `javascript:` URL contains nothing it changes; allow only http(s) or a relative path. — web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:247
What to do
Each finding names the expression, the attribute it lands in and the line. Confirm the value's origin from the read this analyzer traced, then escape it at the sink or validate it against the shape the attribute accepts before interpolating.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.
Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.
Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a `for` loop leaves the `dict`, `set` or `deque` it is walking alone — CPython's iterators over those check that the collection has not changed size since the loop began, so a body that removes from (or empties) the very collection the loop is walking makes the next step raise `RuntimeError: dictionary changed size during iteration` and the remaining items are never seen.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
`if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. (×19) — internal/cli/flag_string.go:89, internal/cli/flag_int.go:100, internal/cli/flag_duration.go:99, …
`if err := json.Unmarshal(data, dm); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — REDACTED:900
`if ctxErr := c.ctxErr(); ctxErr != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — REDACTED:722
`if err := unix.Statvfs(volumePath, &stat); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — src/diskusage/diskusage_netbsd.go:16
`if readErr != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. (×2) — src/store/service.go:417, REDACTED:490
`if downloadErr != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — src/storeclient/client.go:1078
An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×11) — web/scripts/build-wasm.mjs:40, web/src/releases.ts:62, web/src/analytics.ts:23, …
`.catch(() => {})` handles the rejection by doing nothing — the failure is discarded with no log and no rethrow, and the chain carries on as if the work succeeded. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, hand it to a caller that can (`next(error)`, a returned rejection), or don't catch it. (×4) — web/src/App.tsx:812, web/src/App.tsx:874, web/src/protocol/stored.ts:729, …
What to do
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded)
Do you agree with this assessment?
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether strict null checking is enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` assertion — TypeScript's `strictNullChecks` (which `strict` turns on) is what makes `string` exclude `null` and `undefined`, and the postfix `!` is the operator that silences it.
Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.
~2.0 `!` null assertions per 1k TypeScript source lines — 26 assertion(s) across the 12901 source line(s) of the 38 TypeScript file(s) read, which is the only code the operator asserts anything in (a `!` in a `.js` file is not this operator and was not counted, and one in a file whose null checking is off silences nothing). Densest: web/src/protocol/ssh.ts (8), REDACTED (5), web/src/App.tsx (3). Each one tells the compiler to trust the author about null, suppressing the very diagnostic `strictNullChecks` exists to produce.
What to do
The findings name the configuration each number was taken from and, for the assertions, the files that hold them. Turn null checking on where it is off — `"strict": true` in the base tsconfig that the others extend switches `strictNullChecks` on with the rest of the family — and then resolve the assertions rather than adding to them. A `!` on a value the checker could show to be null is a promise the author cannot check from where they are standing, and each one is a `TypeError: Cannot read properties of null` waiting for the path that makes it true; where the value genuinely cannot be null, say something the checker can see instead (narrow it with a test, make the property required, drop the `?`).
Do you agree with this assessment?
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
Statically assessed 15 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (27%; ≈30% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 40 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Unscored — 3 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.
P12 CI test-gate honesty — 1 observation(s) recorded · Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 5 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — 3 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 39 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's Go imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's; this repository's Python imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's; this repository's TypeScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release.
Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit:
https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.go), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 4 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — web/ runs vitest but declares no coverage provider, so the suite can run and still produce no lcov — add `@vitest/coverage-v8` (or `@vitest/coverage-istanbul`) as a devDependency. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (1 of 2 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 3 value object(s)
ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 1 CQRS handler(s); 1 event-sourced shape(s) (event folds / event-recording aggregates)
ED5 Idempotency — Not assessed, and this one is on us: 1 command handler(s) or message consumer(s) were found here, but this check does not yet recognise persistence writes in this repository's language. Idempotency was neither confirmed nor ruled out — this is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (1 Go aggregate(s) recording domain events (own events-slice append / raise-record))
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
AC2 · Forms & labels· <input> without a programmatic label · ×1
<input> without a programmatic label web/src/App.tsx:1359— This control has no associated label. Add a <label htmlFor> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) internal/cli/flag_string.go:89— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) internal/cli/flag_int.go:100— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) internal/cli/flag_duration.go:99— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) internal/cli/flag_bool.go:100— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:900— `if err := json.Unmarshal(data, dm); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/cli/update.go:158— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/cli/update.go:163— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/cli/update.go:215— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/cli/update.go:219— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/cli/update.go:234— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/cli/update.go:239— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:722— `if ctxErr := c.ctxErr(); ctxErr != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:1035— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:1374— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/diskusage/diskusage_netbsd.go:16— `if err := unix.Statvfs(volumePath, &stat); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/diskusage/diskusage.go:19— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/sshshare/local_terminal_unix.go:35— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/store/service.go:377— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/store/service.go:417— `if readErr != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/store/service.go:598— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/store/service.go:602— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/storeclient/client.go:1078— `if downloadErr != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:490— `if readErr != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:647— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:950— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Hotspot: web/src/App.tsx web/src/App.tsx:663— web/src/App.tsx changed 42 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 188 in App.App at line 663. 14 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 28 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- web/src/App.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/cli/cli.go src/cli/cli.go:602— src/cli/cli.go changed 40 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 60 in cli.send at line 602. 13 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 27 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/cli/cli.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: REDACTED REDACTED:3356— REDACTED changed 36 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 53 in Client.updateIfRecipientHasFileInfo at line 3356. 16 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 20 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- REDACTED`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: REDACTED REDACTED:1070— REDACTED changed 15 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 49 in utils.unzipDirectoryFromReaderWithLimit at line 1070. 7 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 8 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- REDACTED`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/tcp/tcp.go src/tcp/tcp.go:424— src/tcp/tcp.go changed 18 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 36 in server.clientHandshake at line 424. 10 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 — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/tcp/tcp.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: web/src/Blog.tsx web/src/Blog.tsx:215— web/src/Blog.tsx changed 15 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 39 in Blog.useBlogMetadata at line 215. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 11 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- web/src/Blog.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/webrelay/webrelay.go src/webrelay/webrelay.go:519— src/webrelay/webrelay.go changed 19 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 30 in staticHandler.ServeHTTP at line 519. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 15 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/webrelay/webrelay.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: web/src/protocol/client.ts web/src/protocol/client.ts:370— web/src/protocol/client.ts changed 12 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 29 in client.sendFiles at line 370. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 9 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- web/src/protocol/client.ts`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/cli/store.go src/cli/store.go:255— src/cli/store.go changed 9 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 22 in cli.sendStored at line 255. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 6 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/cli/store.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/store/service.go src/store/service.go:802— src/store/service.go changed 5 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 35 in Service.create at line 802. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 3 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/store/service.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/storeclient/client.go src/storeclient/client.go:991— src/storeclient/client.go changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 19 in Client.writeFileChunks at line 991. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/storeclient/client.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: web/src/SSHPanel.tsx web/src/SSHPanel.tsx:44— web/src/SSHPanel.tsx changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 42 in SSHPanel.SSHPanel at line 44. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- web/src/SSHPanel.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: web/src/protocol/metadata.ts web/src/protocol/metadata.ts:148— web/src/protocol/metadata.ts changed 6 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 20 in metadata.validateSenderInfo at line 148. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- web/src/protocol/metadata.ts`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/webcli/webcli.go src/webcli/webcli.go:75— src/webcli/webcli.go changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in webcli.serve at line 75. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/webcli/webcli.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/comm/comm.go src/comm/comm.go:52— src/comm/comm.go changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in comm.NewConnectionContext at line 52. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/comm/comm.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/cli/update.go src/cli/update.go:46— src/cli/update.go changed 4 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 22 in cli.updateCommand at line 46. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/cli/update.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: REDACTED REDACTED:82— REDACTED changed 4 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in utils.HashFileCtx at line 82. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- REDACTED`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/sshshare/protocol.go src/sshshare/protocol.go:109— src/sshshare/protocol.go changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in sshshare.guestPAKE at line 109. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/sshshare/protocol.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/croc/relay_dial.go src/croc/relay_dial.go:49— src/croc/relay_dial.go changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in croc.raceRelayTCPWithDialer at line 49. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/croc/relay_dial.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/croc/tailcat_negotiation.go src/croc/tailcat_negotiation.go:712— src/croc/tailcat_negotiation.go changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in Client.processTransportSelect at line 712. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/croc/tailcat_negotiation.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/cli/ssh.go src/cli/ssh.go:45— src/cli/ssh.go changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in cli.joinSSHSession at line 45. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/cli/ssh.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
FunctionTooLong: App.App web/src/App.tsx:663— FunctionTooLong — App runs 1152 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1052 over it, 11.52× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: SSHPanel.SSHPanel web/src/SSHPanel.tsx:44— FunctionTooLong — SSHPanel runs 227 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 127 over it, 2.27× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: client.receiveFiles web/src/protocol/client.ts:718— FunctionTooLong — receiveFiles runs 192 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 92 over it, 1.92× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: cli.newApp src/cli/cli.go:53— FunctionTooLong — newApp runs 183 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 83 over it, 1.83× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: cli.send src/cli/cli.go:602— FunctionTooLong — send runs 178 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 78 over it, 1.78× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: client.sendFiles web/src/protocol/client.ts:370— FunctionTooLong — sendFiles runs 168 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 68 over it, 1.68× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: Blog.BlogBlockView web/src/Blog.tsx:1001— FunctionTooLong — BlogBlockView runs 156 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 56 over it, 1.56× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: croc.GetFilesInfoWithExactExclusionsContext REDACTED:1064— FunctionTooLong — GetFilesInfoWithExactExclusionsContext runs 146 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 46 over it, 1.46× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: utils.ZipDirectoryWithExactExclusionsContext REDACTED:721— FunctionTooLong — ZipDirectoryWithExactExclusionsContext runs 136 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 36 over it, 1.36× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: Blog.useBlogMetadata web/src/Blog.tsx:215— FunctionTooLong — useBlogMetadata runs 136 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 36 over it, 1.36× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: Blog.BlogIndex web/src/Blog.tsx:743— FunctionTooLong — BlogIndex runs 133 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 33 over it, 1.33× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: cli.receive src/cli/cli.go:972— FunctionTooLong — receive runs 131 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 31 over it, 1.31× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: utils.unzipDirectoryFromReaderWithLimit REDACTED:1070— FunctionTooLong — unzipDirectoryFromReaderWithLimit runs 117 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 17 over it, 1.17× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: Blog.blogStructuredData web/src/Blog.tsx:71— FunctionTooLong — blogStructuredData runs 111 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 11 over it, 1.11× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: cli.relay src/cli/cli.go:1157— FunctionTooLong — relay runs 106 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 6 over it, 1.06× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: Blog.BlogArticle web/src/Blog.tsx:1190— FunctionTooLong — BlogArticle runs 105 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 5 over it, 1.05× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/scripts/build-wasm.mjs:40— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/src/releases.ts:62— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/src/analytics.ts:23— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/src/Blog.tsx:59— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/src/Blog.tsx:386— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/src/App.tsx:344— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/src/App.tsx:785— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/src/App.tsx:802— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/src/App.tsx:812— `.catch(() => {})` handles the rejection by doing nothing — the failure is discarded with no log and no rethrow, and the chain carries on as if the work succeeded. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, hand it to a caller that can (`next(error)`, a returned rejection), or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/src/App.tsx:862— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/src/App.tsx:874— `.catch(() => {})` handles the rejection by doing nothing — the failure is discarded with no log and no rethrow, and the chain carries on as if the work succeeded. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, hand it to a caller that can (`next(error)`, a returned rejection), or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/src/App.tsx:937— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/src/App.tsx:1221— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/src/protocol/stored.ts:729— `.catch(() => {})` handles the rejection by doing nothing — the failure is discarded with no log and no rethrow, and the chain carries on as if the work succeeded. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, hand it to a caller that can (`next(error)`, a returned rejection), or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/src/protocol/stored.ts:754— `.catch(() => {})` handles the rejection by doing nothing — the failure is discarded with no log and no rethrow, and the chain carries on as if the work succeeded. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, hand it to a caller that can (`next(error)`, a returned rejection), or don't catch it.
FileTooLong: REDACTED REDACTED— FileTooLong — 2764 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 73% of them inside a single declaration: Client (58 blocks, 188-3830). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 2264 over it, 5.53× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/App.tsx web/src/App.tsx— FileTooLong — 1706 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 68% of them inside a single declaration: App (663-2034). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1206 over it, 3.41× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: REDACTED REDACTED— FileTooLong — 1427 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 927 over it, 2.85× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/Blog.tsx web/src/Blog.tsx— FileTooLong — 1105 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 605 over it, 2.21× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: storeclient/client.go src/storeclient/client.go— FileTooLong — 1024 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 67% of them inside a single declaration: Client (24 blocks, 37-1374). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 524 over it, 2.05× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: store/service.go src/store/service.go— FileTooLong — 922 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 68% of them inside a single declaration: Service (35 blocks, 118-1274). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 422 over it, 1.84× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: cli/cli.go src/cli/cli.go— FileTooLong — 889 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 389 over it, 1.78× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: REDACTED REDACTED— FileTooLong — 872 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 372 over it, 1.74× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: protocol/stored.ts web/src/protocol/stored.ts— FileTooLong — 870 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 370 over it, 1.74× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: protocol/client.ts web/src/protocol/client.ts— FileTooLong — 751 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 251 over it, 1.50× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: tcp/tcp.go src/tcp/tcp.go— FileTooLong — 720 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 220 over it, 1.44× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: croc/tailcat_negotiation.go src/croc/tailcat_negotiation.go— FileTooLong — 566 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 74% of them inside a single declaration: Client (24 blocks, 185-775). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 66 over it, 1.13× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
MethodTooLong: Client.activateStagedTransportSender src/croc/staged_transport.go:62— MethodTooLong — activateStagedTransportSender runs 157 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 57 over it, 1.57× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Client.Receive REDACTED:1978— MethodTooLong — Receive runs 152 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 52 over it, 1.52× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Client.processSenderInfo REDACTED:2424— MethodTooLong — processSenderInfo runs 128 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 28 over it, 1.28× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Client.receiveData REDACTED:3574— MethodTooLong — receiveData runs 117 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 17 over it, 1.17× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Client.processMessage REDACTED:2905— MethodTooLong — processMessage runs 114 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 14 over it, 1.14× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Client.activateTailcatSender src/croc/tailcat_negotiation.go:384— MethodTooLong — activateTailcatSender runs 110 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 10 over it, 1.10× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
R4 · Test Coverage· No test reaches this file · ×5
No test reaches this file web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:1— No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/scripts/build-wasm.mjs:1— No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/public/croc-ssh-worker.js:1— No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/scripts/embed-dist.mjs:1— No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/public/config.js:1— No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
ClassTooLong: Client REDACTED:188— ClassTooLong — 2017 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 143 methods, 58 blocks, lines 188-3830. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 1617 over it, 5.04× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: App web/src/App.tsx:1— ClassTooLong — 1152 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 14 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 752 over it, 2.88× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Client src/storeclient/client.go:37— ClassTooLong — 686 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 23 methods, 24 blocks, lines 37-1374. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 286 over it, 1.72× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Service src/store/service.go:118— ClassTooLong — 629 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 34 methods, 35 blocks, lines 118-1274. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 229 over it, 1.57× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped· Untrusted text written into markup unescaped · ×4
Untrusted text written into markup unescaped web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:234— `escapeHTML(absoluteURL(entry.image))` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the start of a URL attribute, where it chooses the scheme through markup built here with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. HTML encoding does not help here — a `javascript:` URL contains nothing it changes; allow only http(s) or a relative path.
Untrusted text written into markup unescaped web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:245— `escapeHTML(canonicalURL)` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the start of a URL attribute, where it chooses the scheme through markup this function returns with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. HTML encoding does not help here — a `javascript:` URL contains nothing it changes; allow only http(s) or a relative path.
Untrusted text written into markup unescaped web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:246— `escapeHTML(metadata.site.authorUrl)` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the start of a URL attribute, where it chooses the scheme through markup this function returns with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. HTML encoding does not help here — a `javascript:` URL contains nothing it changes; allow only http(s) or a relative path.
Untrusted text written into markup unescaped web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:247— `escapeHTML(imageURL)` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the start of a URL attribute, where it chooses the scheme through markup this function returns with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. HTML encoding does not help here — a `javascript:` URL contains nothing it changes; allow only http(s) or a relative path.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit · ×3
Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: github.com/magisterquis/connectproxy — Direct dependency `github.com/magisterquis/connectproxy` is required at `v0.0.0-20200725203833-3582e84f0c9b` in REDACTED — a pseudo-version, which pins an UNTAGGED commit from 2020-07-25, 6.2 years ago. The pin itself is exact, so this is not a reproducibility defect, and it is not a claim that the module is unmaintained. What it says is that this repository tracks no RELEASE of `github.com/magisterquis/connectproxy` and has not moved this requirement in 6.2 years: every fix the module has published since that commit — including any security fix — is absent from this build, whether the module went quiet or moved on without you. Check whether `github.com/magisterquis/connectproxy` now publishes tagged releases and move the requirement to one; if it publishes none, re-pin to a current commit.
Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: github.com/sabhiram/go-gitignore — Direct dependency `github.com/sabhiram/go-gitignore` is required at `v0.0.0-20210923224102-525f6e181f06` in REDACTED — a pseudo-version, which pins an UNTAGGED commit from 2021-09-23, 5.1 years ago. The pin itself is exact, so this is not a reproducibility defect, and it is not a claim that the module is unmaintained. What it says is that this repository tracks no RELEASE of `github.com/sabhiram/go-gitignore` and has not moved this requirement in 5.1 years: every fix the module has published since that commit — including any security fix — is absent from this build, whether the module went quiet or moved on without you. Check whether `github.com/sabhiram/go-gitignore` now publishes tagged releases and move the requirement to one; if it publishes none, re-pin to a current commit.
Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: github.com/skip2/go-qrcode — Direct dependency `github.com/skip2/go-qrcode` is required at `v0.0.0-20200617195104-da1b6568686e` in REDACTED — a pseudo-version, which pins an UNTAGGED commit from 2020-06-17, 6.3 years ago. The pin itself is exact, so this is not a reproducibility defect, and it is not a claim that the module is unmaintained. What it says is that this repository tracks no RELEASE of `github.com/skip2/go-qrcode` and has not moved this requirement in 6.3 years: every fix the module has published since that commit — including any security fix — is absent from this build, whether the module went quiet or moved on without you. Check whether `github.com/skip2/go-qrcode` now publishes tagged releases and move the requirement to one; if it publishes none, re-pin to a current commit.
TodoComment REDACTED:3134— // TODO: determine the missing chunks — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment REDACTED:3168— // TODO: do the last finishing stuff — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/tcp/options.go:9— // TODO: maybe export from logger library? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) web/src/App.tsx:775— web/src/App.tsx:775 · web/src/Blog.tsx:376 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) web/src/App.tsx:942— web/src/App.tsx:942 · web/src/App.tsx:955 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) web/src/Blog.tsx:789— web/src/Blog.tsx:789 · web/src/Blog.tsx:818 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (12 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×3
Duplicated block with local edits (12 matched lines × 2 locations) web/src/protocol/client.ts:229— web/src/protocol/client.ts:229 · web/src/protocol/stored.ts:306 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 81 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's 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 — 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.
Duplicated block with local edits (12 matched lines × 2 locations) web/src/protocol/compression.ts:16— web/src/protocol/compression.ts:16 · web/src/protocol/stored.ts:731 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 60 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's 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 — 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.
Duplicated block with local edits (12 matched lines × 2 locations) web/src/protocol/stored-crypto.ts:195— web/src/protocol/stored-crypto.ts:195 · web/src/protocol/stored-crypto.ts:216 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 53 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's 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 — 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.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:169— web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:169 · web/src/Blog.tsx:138 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) web/src/App.tsx:690— web/src/App.tsx:690 · web/src/App.tsx:709 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) REDACTED:76— REDACTED:76 · REDACTED:97 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
TooManyMethods: Client REDACTED:188— TooManyMethods — 143 methods, declared across 14 files: REDACTED (57), croc/tailcat_negotiation.go (24), croc/client_state.go (13), croc/staged_transport.go (11), +10 more file(s). The bar is 30 methods; this is 113 over it, 4.77× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Service src/store/service.go:118— TooManyMethods — 34 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 4 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyFields: Client REDACTED:188— TooManyFields — 102 stored fields beside 143 methods. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 72 over it, 3.40× the bar. This is width in DATA, not behaviour: every reader that takes the whole type couples to all of its fields, so a change to any one of them is a change every reader has to be checked against. To reduce it, group the fields that are read together by the same callers into a smaller type of their own, and have this one hold that type as a single member — each reader then names only the group it uses.
TooManyFields: Options REDACTED:96— TooManyFields — 35 stored fields. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 5 over it, 1.17× the bar. This is width in DATA, not behaviour: every reader that takes the whole type couples to all of its fields, so a change to any one of them is a change every reader has to be checked against. To reduce it, group the fields that are read together by the same callers into a smaller type of their own, and have this one hold that type as a single member — each reader then names only the group it uses.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/cli/cli.go:948— src/cli/cli.go:948-957 | src/cli/cli.go:1130-1139 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/cli/cli.go:945` calls `String` and `src/cli/cli.go:1129` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) web/sshwasm/main.go:179— web/sshwasm/main.go:179-188 | web/sshwasm/main.go:194-203 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `web/sshwasm/main.go:179` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) web/src/Blog.tsx:869— web/src/Blog.tsx:869 · web/src/Blog.tsx:1273 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) REDACTED:77— REDACTED:77 · web/src/wasm/ssh-client.ts:182 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) web/src/App.tsx:1559— web/src/App.tsx:1559 · web/src/stored-ui.tsx:91 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) web/src/protocol/sha256.ts:97— web/src/protocol/sha256.ts:97 · web/src/protocol/storage.ts:34 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
X2 · Cancellation propagation· Function without context.Context · ×2
Function without context.Context: LocalIP REDACTED:380— `LocalIP` calls `net.Dial(…)` but takes no context.Context and reaches none its caller controls, so its caller cannot cancel the request once it has started. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it: `http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, …)`, `(&net.Dialer{}).DialContext(ctx, …)`.
Function without context.Context: FindOpenPorts REDACTED:640— `FindOpenPorts` calls `net.DialTimeout(…)` but takes no context.Context and reaches none its caller controls, so its caller cannot cancel the request once it has started. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it: `http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, …)`, `(&net.Dialer{}).DialContext(ctx, …)`.
AC6 · Visual & motion safety· Focus outline removed in CSS without a · ×1
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement web/src/styles.css:459— `.ssh-code-input input:focus-visible` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
AC7 · A11y enforcement· Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1
Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 9 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
App.App (cyclomatic 188) web/src/App.tsx:663— App.App has cyclomatic complexity 188 (threshold 15). Of this number, 101 points are the body's own statements and 87 belong to 36 function items inside it that branch. 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.
cli.send (cyclomatic 60) src/cli/cli.go:602— cli.send has cyclomatic complexity 60 (threshold 15). Of this number, 58 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
Client.updateIfRecipientHasFileInfo (cyclomatic 53) REDACTED:3356— Client.updateIfRecipientHasFileInfo has cyclomatic complexity 53 (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.
Client.activateStagedTransportSender (cyclomatic 53) src/croc/staged_transport.go:62— Client.activateStagedTransportSender has cyclomatic complexity 53 (threshold 15). Of this number, 35 points are the body's own statements and 18 belong to 6 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
utils.unzipDirectoryFromReaderWithLimit (cyclomatic 49) REDACTED:1070— utils.unzipDirectoryFromReaderWithLimit has cyclomatic complexity 49 (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.
croc.GetFilesInfoWithExactExclusionsContext (cyclomatic 48) REDACTED:1064— croc.GetFilesInfoWithExactExclusionsContext has cyclomatic complexity 48 (threshold 15). Of this number, 38 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
cli.receive (cyclomatic 47) src/cli/cli.go:972— cli.receive has cyclomatic complexity 47 (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.
Client.processSenderInfo (cyclomatic 47) REDACTED:2424— Client.processSenderInfo has cyclomatic complexity 47 (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.
utils.ZipDirectoryWithExactExclusionsContext (cyclomatic 45) REDACTED:721— utils.ZipDirectoryWithExactExclusionsContext has cyclomatic complexity 45 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 15 of the 45 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 799, 757). The decisions are inside those literals, 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 literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Client.Receive (cyclomatic 42) REDACTED:1978— Client.Receive has cyclomatic complexity 42 (threshold 15). Of this number, 25 points are the body's own statements and 17 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
SSHPanel.SSHPanel (cyclomatic 42) web/src/SSHPanel.tsx:44— SSHPanel.SSHPanel has cyclomatic complexity 42 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 13 of the 42 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 12 function items inside it that branch (join, a function literal at line 128, a function literal at line 91, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
Service.ServeHTTP (cyclomatic 39) src/store/service.go:689— Service.ServeHTTP has cyclomatic complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
Blog.useBlogMetadata (cyclomatic 39) web/src/Blog.tsx:215— Blog.useBlogMetadata has cyclomatic complexity 39 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 39 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 216, 351, 272, …). The decisions are inside those literals, 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 literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Client.processMessage (cyclomatic 38) REDACTED:2905— Client.processMessage has cyclomatic complexity 38 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
Client.receiveData (cyclomatic 38) REDACTED:3574— Client.receiveData has cyclomatic complexity 38 (threshold 15). Of this number, 37 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
Client.transfer (cyclomatic 37) REDACTED:2207— Client.transfer has cyclomatic complexity 37 (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.
server.clientHandshake (cyclomatic 36) src/tcp/tcp.go:424— server.clientHandshake has cyclomatic complexity 36 (threshold 15). Of this number, 35 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
sshclient.Run (cyclomatic 35) internal/sshclient/client.go:44— sshclient.Run has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15). Of this number, 30 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
Service.create (cyclomatic 35) src/store/service.go:802— Service.create has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15). Of this number, 32 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
Client.connectReceiverRelayControl (cyclomatic 30) src/croc/relay_dial.go:163— Client.connectReceiverRelayControl has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
staticHandler.ServeHTTP (cyclomatic 30) src/webrelay/webrelay.go:519— staticHandler.ServeHTTP has cyclomatic complexity 30 (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.
client.sendFiles (cyclomatic 29) web/src/protocol/client.ts:370— client.sendFiles has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
client.receiveFiles (cyclomatic 29) web/src/protocol/client.ts:718— client.receiveFiles has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
store.New (cyclomatic 28) src/store/service.go:160— store.New has cyclomatic complexity 28 (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.
Service.Sweep (cyclomatic 27) src/store/service.go:350— Service.Sweep has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). Of this number, 19 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
Client.senderWaitForHandshake (cyclomatic 26) REDACTED:1503— Client.senderWaitForHandshake has cyclomatic complexity 26 (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.
Client.Send (cyclomatic 26) REDACTED:1748— Client.Send has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
Client.activateTailcatSender (cyclomatic 26) src/croc/tailcat_negotiation.go:384— Client.activateTailcatSender has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
sshshare.startHostWithDeps (cyclomatic 26) src/sshshare/host.go:87— sshshare.startHostWithDeps has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). Of this number, 24 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
terminalHub.Attach (cyclomatic 26) src/sshshare/terminal.go:127— terminalHub.Attach has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 10 of the 26 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 162, 204, 193). The decisions are inside those literals, 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 literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
cli.relay (cyclomatic 25) src/cli/cli.go:1157— cli.relay has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
TransferEstimator.update (cyclomatic 25) web/src/progress.ts:32— TransferEstimator.update has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
Client.processTailcatOffer (cyclomatic 24) src/croc/tailcat_negotiation.go:633— Client.processTailcatOffer has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 11 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
sshshare.hostPAKE (cyclomatic 23) src/sshshare/protocol.go:175— sshshare.hostPAKE has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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.
cli.sendStored (cyclomatic 22) src/cli/store.go:255— cli.sendStored has cyclomatic complexity 22 (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.
cli.updateCommand (cyclomatic 22) src/cli/update.go:46— cli.updateCommand 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.
croc.newClient (cyclomatic 22) REDACTED:398— croc.newClient 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.
cli.newApp (cyclomatic 21) src/cli/cli.go:53— cli.newApp has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 21 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 225, 183). The decisions are inside those literals, 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 literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
cli.applyRememberedSendOptions (cyclomatic 21) src/cli/cli.go:527— cli.applyRememberedSendOptions has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
tcp.HandshakeTCPServerCapability (cyclomatic 21) src/tcp/tcp.go:938— tcp.HandshakeTCPServerCapability has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
server.serve (cyclomatic 21) src/tcp/tcp.go:258— server.serve has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 21 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 291). 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's 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.
webcli.resolveServeAddress (cyclomatic 21) src/webcli/webcli.go:231— webcli.resolveServeAddress has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
cli.extractUpdateBinary (cyclomatic 20) src/cli/update.go:404— cli.extractUpdateBinary has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Client.sendCollectFiles (cyclomatic 20) REDACTED:1289— Client.sendCollectFiles has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
metadata.validateSenderInfo (cyclomatic 20) web/src/protocol/metadata.ts:148— metadata.validateSenderInfo has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Blog.BlogBlockView (cyclomatic 20) web/src/Blog.tsx:1001— Blog.BlogBlockView has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 12 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
cli.receiveStored (cyclomatic 19) src/cli/store.go:333— cli.receiveStored 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.
Client.processMessagePake (cyclomatic 19) REDACTED:2607— Client.processMessagePake has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
Client.writeFileChunks (cyclomatic 19) src/storeclient/client.go:991— Client.writeFileChunks has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 19 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 1023). 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's 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.
utils.MissingChunks (cyclomatic 19) REDACTED:437— utils.MissingChunks has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
webrelay.normalizeConfig (cyclomatic 19) src/webrelay/webrelay.go:211— webrelay.normalizeConfig 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.
SSHJoinSession.runAttempt (cyclomatic 19) web/src/protocol/ssh.ts:328— SSHJoinSession.runAttempt has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Of this number, 11 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 2 function items inside it that branch. 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.
sshshare.guestPAKE (cyclomatic 18) src/sshshare/protocol.go:109— sshshare.guestPAKE has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.
storecrypto.ParseShare (cyclomatic 18) src/storecrypto/storecrypto.go:461— storecrypto.ParseShare 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.
RelayCapabilitySet.verifyAndUse (cyclomatic 18) src/tcp/capability.go:110— RelayCapabilitySet.verifyAndUse has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.
SSHWasmClient.constructor (cyclomatic 18) web/src/wasm/ssh-client.ts:52— SSHWasmClient.constructor has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 18 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 61, 104, 125, …). The decisions are inside those literals, 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 literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
cli.applyStandaloneUpdateWithAssetName (cyclomatic 17) src/cli/update.go:295— cli.applyStandaloneUpdateWithAssetName has cyclomatic complexity 17 (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.
croc.raceRelayTCPWithDialer (cyclomatic 17) src/croc/relay_dial.go:49— croc.raceRelayTCPWithDialer has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 11 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
Client.sendData (cyclomatic 17) REDACTED:3751— Client.sendData has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
Client.processTransportSelect (cyclomatic 17) src/croc/tailcat_negotiation.go:712— Client.processTransportSelect 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.
storecrypto.ValidateManifest (cyclomatic 17) src/storecrypto/storecrypto.go:364— storecrypto.ValidateManifest 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.
ssh.validateSSHOffer (cyclomatic 17) web/src/protocol/ssh.ts:90— ssh.validateSSHOffer has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
comm.NewConnectionContext (cyclomatic 16) src/comm/comm.go:52— comm.NewConnectionContext has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
croc.copyToClipboard (cyclomatic 16) REDACTED:3839— croc.copyToClipboard has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Client.transferOverLocalRelay (cyclomatic 16) REDACTED:1433— Client.transferOverLocalRelay has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
sshshare.receiveOffer (cyclomatic 16) src/sshshare/protocol.go:390— sshshare.receiveOffer has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
utils.HashFileCtx (cyclomatic 16) REDACTED:82— utils.HashFileCtx has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Repeated repair: main.go main.go:18— main.go changed 5 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 7 (its worst body is main.main at line 18), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix: speed up interrupt shutdown”; “fix: normalize SSH handshake deadline errors”; “fix release version tagging”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 06:41:07 -07:00' --until='2026-10-22 06:41:07 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- main.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
croc.GetFilesInfoWithExactExclusionsContext (cognitive 130) REDACTED:1064— croc.GetFilesInfoWithExactExclusionsContext has cognitive complexity 130 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 43 (117 pts), loops 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 78). Of this number, 98 points are the body's own statements and 32 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Client.activateStagedTransportSender (cognitive 115) src/croc/staged_transport.go:62— Client.activateStagedTransportSender has cognitive complexity 115 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 38 (104 pts), match/switch 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 70). Of this number, 91 points are the body's own statements and 24 belong to 6 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
cli.send (cognitive 96) src/cli/cli.go:602— cli.send has cognitive complexity 96 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 41 (69 pts), loops 9 (17 pts), boolean chains 10 (nesting depth added 36). Of this number, 92 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
Client.receiveData (cognitive 85) REDACTED:3574— Client.receiveData has cognitive complexity 85 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 31 (78 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 1 (nesting depth added 47). Of this number, 84 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
utils.unzipDirectoryFromReaderWithLimit (cognitive 85) REDACTED:1070— utils.unzipDirectoryFromReaderWithLimit has cognitive complexity 85 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 39 (76 pts), loops 5, boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 37). 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.
Client.processSenderInfo (cognitive 79) REDACTED:2424— Client.processSenderInfo has cognitive complexity 79 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 36 (67 pts), boolean chains 8, loops 4 (nesting depth added 31). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Client.updateIfRecipientHasFileInfo (cognitive 79) REDACTED:3356— Client.updateIfRecipientHasFileInfo has cognitive complexity 79 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (62 pts), boolean chains 13, match/switch 1 (3 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 40). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
utils.ZipDirectoryWithExactExclusionsContext (cognitive 77) REDACTED:721— utils.ZipDirectoryWithExactExclusionsContext has cognitive complexity 77 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 42 (71 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 31). Of this number, 19 points are the body's own statements and 58 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
Client.senderWaitForHandshake (cognitive 74) REDACTED:1503— Client.senderWaitForHandshake has cognitive complexity 74 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 26 (73 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 47). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Client.Receive (cognitive 65) REDACTED:1978— Client.Receive has cognitive complexity 65 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 34 (56 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 24). Of this number, 33 points are the body's own statements and 32 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
cli.receive (cognitive 64) src/cli/cli.go:972— cli.receive has cognitive complexity 64 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 35 (54 pts), boolean chains 9, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 19). 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.
Client.transfer (cognitive 56) REDACTED:2207— Client.transfer has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (42 pts), boolean chains 8, loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
App.App (cognitive 56) web/src/App.tsx:663— App.App has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 59, if/else 44 (50 pts), ternaries 25 (33 pts), error handling 12, loops 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (App.App::startReceive) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
Client.connectReceiverRelayControl (cognitive 54) src/croc/relay_dial.go:163— Client.connectReceiverRelayControl has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (36 pts), match/switch 6 (14 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2 (nesting depth added 31). Of this number, 39 points are the body's own statements and 15 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
Blog.useBlogMetadata (cognitive 54) web/src/Blog.tsx:215— Blog.useBlogMetadata has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (29 pts), ternaries 13 (17 pts), loops 4 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 13). None of this is in the body itself: all 54 points belong to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 216, 351, 272, …). The decisions are inside those literals, 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 literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
server.clientHandshake (cognitive 46) src/tcp/tcp.go:424— server.clientHandshake has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 31 (43 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 12). Of this number, 45 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs 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.
server.serve (cognitive 44) src/tcp/tcp.go:258— server.serve has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (36 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 24). Most of this is not in the body itself: 9 of the 44 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 291). 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's 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.
sshclient.Run (cognitive 41) internal/sshclient/client.go:44— sshclient.Run has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (32 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 10). Of this number, 31 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
Client.writeFileChunks (cognitive 40) src/storeclient/client.go:991— Client.writeFileChunks has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (34 pts), loops 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 22). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 40 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 1023). 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's 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.
staticHandler.ServeHTTP (cognitive 38) src/webrelay/webrelay.go:519— staticHandler.ServeHTTP has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (30 pts), boolean chains 8 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Client.sendData (cognitive 37) REDACTED:3751— Client.sendData has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (33 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 21). Of this number, 36 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
client.sendFiles (cognitive 37) web/src/protocol/client.ts:370— client.sendFiles has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (22 pts), boolean chains 7, ternaries 3 (6 pts), error handling 1, loops 1 (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.
cli.extractUpdateBinary (cognitive 36) src/cli/update.go:404— cli.extractUpdateBinary has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (31 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (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.
Client.Send (cognitive 36) REDACTED:1748— Client.Send has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (33 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 11). Of this number, 28 points are the body's own statements and 8 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Service.Sweep (cognitive 36) src/store/service.go:350— Service.Sweep has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (26 pts), boolean chains 7, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 13). Of this number, 23 points are the body's own statements and 13 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.
client.receiveFiles (cognitive 36) web/src/protocol/client.ts:718— client.receiveFiles has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (19 pts), error handling 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 2 (4 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
SSHPanel.SSHPanel (cognitive 36) web/src/SSHPanel.tsx:44— SSHPanel.SSHPanel has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (19 pts), boolean chains 16, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 2). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 36 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 12 function items inside it that branch (join, a function literal at line 128, a function literal at line 174, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
cli.newApp (cognitive 35) src/cli/cli.go:53— cli.newApp has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (28 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 13). None of this is in the body itself: all 35 points belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 225, 183). The decisions are inside those literals, 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 literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
cli.relay (cognitive 35) src/cli/cli.go:1157— cli.relay has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (31 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). Of this number, 27 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
sshshare.startHostWithDeps (cognitive 34) src/sshshare/host.go:87— sshshare.startHostWithDeps has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (28 pts), loops 4 (5 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 10). Of this number, 33 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs 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.
tcp.ConnectToTCPServerWithCapabilityContext (cognitive 32) src/tcp/tcp.go:884— tcp.ConnectToTCPServerWithCapabilityContext has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (28 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 19). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
Client.processMessagePake (cognitive 31) REDACTED:2607— Client.processMessagePake has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (29 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 11). Of this number, 27 points are the body's 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Client.uploadFile (cognitive 31) src/storeclient/client.go:596— Client.uploadFile has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (27 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 18). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 31 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 624). 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's 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.
store.New (cognitive 30) src/store/service.go:160— store.New has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 26 (29 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
cli.updateCommand (cognitive 29) src/cli/update.go:46— cli.updateCommand has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (26 pts), boolean chains 3 (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.
Client.processTailcatOffer (cognitive 29) src/croc/tailcat_negotiation.go:633— Client.processTailcatOffer has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (23 pts), match/switch 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 12). Most of this is not in the body itself: 10 of the 29 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 668, 656, 634). The decisions are inside those literals, 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 literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Service.create (cognitive 28) src/store/service.go:802— Service.create has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (22 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (nesting depth added 4). Of this number, 24 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
Blog.BlogBlockView (cognitive 28) web/src/Blog.tsx:1001— Blog.BlogBlockView has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 7 (14 pts), if/else 8 (10 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 9). Most of this is not in the body itself: 13 of the 28 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 5 function literals inside it that branch (lines 1148, 1046, 1125, …). The decisions are inside those literals, 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 literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Client.activateTailcatSender (cognitive 27) src/croc/tailcat_negotiation.go:384— Client.activateTailcatSender has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (23 pts), match/switch 4 (nesting depth added 8). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
webcli.serve (cognitive 27) src/webcli/webcli.go:75— webcli.serve has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (23 pts), loops 2 (4 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.
metadata.validateSenderInfo (cognitive 27) web/src/protocol/metadata.ts:148— metadata.validateSenderInfo has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), ternaries 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
croc.newClient (cognitive 26) REDACTED:398— croc.newClient has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (21 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Client.sendCollectFiles (cognitive 26) REDACTED:1289— Client.sendCollectFiles has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (23 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
terminalHub.Attach (cognitive 26) src/sshshare/terminal.go:127— terminalHub.Attach has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), match/switch 4 (7 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). Most of this is not in the body itself: 5 of the 26 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 162, 204, 193). The decisions are inside those literals, 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 literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Service.ServeHTTP (cognitive 26) src/store/service.go:689— Service.ServeHTTP has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 13, if/else 8 (12 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
webrelay.normalizeConfig (cognitive 26) src/webrelay/webrelay.go:211— webrelay.normalizeConfig has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (22 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Client.transferWithReconnect (cognitive 25) REDACTED:802— Client.transferWithReconnect has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (19 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Client.processMessage (cognitive 25) REDACTED:2905— Client.processMessage has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (20 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
utils.MissingChunks (cognitive 25) REDACTED:437— utils.MissingChunks has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (20 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). Of this number, 23 points are the body's own statements and 2 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.
browserConn.Read (cognitive 25) web/sshwasm/main.go:413— browserConn.Read has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (19 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 1 (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.
cli.receiveStored (cognitive 24) src/cli/store.go:333— cli.receiveStored has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (19 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
croc.raceRelayTCPWithDialer (cognitive 24) src/croc/relay_dial.go:49— croc.raceRelayTCPWithDialer has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), loops 3, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 10 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.
tcp.HandshakeTCPServerCapability (cognitive 24) src/tcp/tcp.go:938— tcp.HandshakeTCPServerCapability has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (24 pts) (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
comm.NewConnectionContext (cognitive 23) src/comm/comm.go:52— comm.NewConnectionContext has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (21 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
joinClient.run (cognitive 23) src/sshshare/client.go:173— joinClient.run has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (22 pts), loops 1 (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.
CrocSocket.constructor (cognitive 23) web/src/protocol/transport.ts:38— CrocSocket.constructor has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), ternaries 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 11). None of this is in the body itself: all 23 points belong to one function literal inside it that branches (line 41). 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's 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.
SSHJoinSession.run (cognitive 23) web/src/protocol/ssh.ts:280— SSHJoinSession.run has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (18 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (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.
croc.encodeFileInfoBatches (cognitive 22) src/croc/file_manifest.go:219— croc.encodeFileInfoBatches has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (20 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 9). Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 6 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.
Client.updateState (cognitive 22) REDACTED:3487— Client.updateState has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Client.processTransportSelect (cognitive 22) src/croc/tailcat_negotiation.go:712— Client.processTransportSelect has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
sshshare.hostPAKE (cognitive 22) src/sshshare/protocol.go:175— sshshare.hostPAKE has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (18 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
webcli.resolveServeAddress (cognitive 22) src/webcli/webcli.go:231— webcli.resolveServeAddress has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (15 pts), boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
Client.transferOverLocalRelay (cognitive 21) REDACTED:1433— Client.transferOverLocalRelay has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (18 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Client.extractReceivedArchives (cognitive 21) REDACTED:2347— Client.extractReceivedArchives has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
cli.applyRememberedSendOptions (cognitive 20) src/cli/cli.go:527— cli.applyRememberedSendOptions has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, boolean chains 6. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
croc.copyToClipboard (cognitive 20) REDACTED:3839— croc.copyToClipboard has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (18 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
receivefs.Normalize (cognitive 20) src/receivefs/path.go:48— receivefs.Normalize has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (16 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 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.
storecrypto.ValidateManifest (cognitive 20) src/storecrypto/storecrypto.go:364— storecrypto.ValidateManifest has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 2 (nesting depth added 4). 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.
firstFrameObserver.Write (cognitive 20) src/tcp/tcp.go:683— firstFrameObserver.Write has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (17 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (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.
SSHWasmClient.constructor (cognitive 20) web/src/wasm/ssh-client.ts:52— SSHWasmClient.constructor has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (11 pts), ternaries 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 6). None of this is in the body itself: all 20 points belong to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 61, 125, 129, …). The decisions are inside those literals, 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 literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
SSHJoinSession.runAttempt (cognitive 20) web/src/protocol/ssh.ts:328— SSHJoinSession.runAttempt has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), boolean chains 3, error handling 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 3). Of this number, 11 points are the body's own statements and 9 belong to 2 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
Client.openRelayDataChannels (cognitive 19) REDACTED:2780— Client.openRelayDataChannels has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (15 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2 (nesting depth added 6). Most of this is not in the body itself: 9 of the 19 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 2801). 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's 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Client.updateIfSenderChannelSecured (cognitive 19) REDACTED:3045— Client.updateIfSenderChannelSecured has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (18 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
storecrypto.ParseShare (cognitive 19) src/storecrypto/storecrypto.go:461— storecrypto.ParseShare has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
tcp.copyWithProtocolObservation (cognitive 19) src/tcp/tcp.go:731— tcp.copyWithProtocolObservation has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), loops 2 (4 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.
release.dependency_licenses (cognitive 19) packaging/release.py:99— release.dependency_licenses has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
cli.joinSSHSession (cognitive 18) src/cli/ssh.go:45— cli.joinSSHSession has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (15 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 4). Of this number, 11 points are the body's own statements and 7 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.
Client.createEmptyFileAndFinish (cognitive 18) REDACTED:3234— Client.createEmptyFileAndFinish has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (18 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Host.serveRendezvous (cognitive 18) src/sshshare/host.go:268— Host.serveRendezvous has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 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.
server.deleteOldRooms (cognitive 18) src/tcp/tcp.go:374— server.deleteOldRooms has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 4 (9 pts), if/else 2 (7 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 11). 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.
verify.inspect_package (cognitive 18) packaging/verify.py:57— verify.inspect_package has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (7 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
App.restoreStoredUpload (cognitive 18) web/src/App.tsx:284— App.restoreStoredUpload has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), boolean chains 3, error handling 2 (3 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts), loops 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.
App.App::startReceive (cognitive 18) web/src/App.tsx:1154— App.App::startReceive has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (8 pts), ternaries 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 1, error handling 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. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (App.App) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
cli.sendStored (cognitive 17) src/cli/store.go:255— cli.sendStored has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, boolean chains 3. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
croc.reserveLocalRelayListeners (cognitive 17) src/croc/local_relay.go:18— croc.reserveLocalRelayListeners has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 3 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.
Client.recipientInitializeFile (cognitive 17) REDACTED:3097— Client.recipientInitializeFile has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (16 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 22 of the 93 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 601 of the 1731 points over it (35%), 3.4× the next-largest file (src/cli/cli.go at 175). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
server.clientCommunication (cognitive 17) src/tcp/tcp.go:564— server.clientCommunication has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (17 pts) (nesting depth added 4). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
cli.applyStandaloneUpdateWithAssetName (cognitive 16) src/cli/update.go:295— cli.applyStandaloneUpdateWithAssetName has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, boolean chains 1. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
sshshare.guestPAKE (cognitive 16) src/sshshare/protocol.go:109— sshshare.guestPAKE has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, boolean chains 3. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Host.authorizeParticipant (cognitive 16) src/sshshare/host.go:321— Host.authorizeParticipant has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (16 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
storeclient.prepareUpload (cognitive 16) src/storeclient/client.go:362— storeclient.prepareUpload has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), loops 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
DataReceiver.read (cognitive 16) web/src/protocol/client.ts:627— DataReceiver.read has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (7 pts), ternaries 2 (5 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 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.
client.waitForHandshake (cognitive 16) web/src/protocol/client.ts:102— client.waitForHandshake has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (8 pts), error handling 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Change coupling: App.tsx ↔ Blog.tsx web/src/App.tsx:1— `web/src/App.tsx` and `web/src/Blog.tsx` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency between them. They sit in the same directory, but in this ecosystem each file is its own module — a sibling reference still needs an import — so the missing import edge is real: the coupling runs through shared behaviour, not a declared dependency. If they duplicate structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `a5f4c54a` fix: improve web ux; `b6f27da9` chore: inline; `b63558d7` Add blog updates and croc v11 release post — run `git show` on any of them.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/cli/cli.go:536— src/cli/cli.go:536-552 | src/cli/cli.go:1059-1075 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/cli/cli.go:536` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) REDACTED:242— REDACTED:242-257 | REDACTED:268-283 | REDACTED:325-340 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:242` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. 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. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:265` calls `Close`, `New` and `REDACTED:241` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/cli/cli.go:799— src/cli/cli.go:799-813 | src/cli/cli.go:814-828 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 3) REDACTED:268— REDACTED:268-279 | REDACTED:288-298 | REDACTED:316-326 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:268` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/sshshare/protocol.go:159— src/sshshare/protocol.go:159-166 | src/sshshare/protocol.go:231-238 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/sshshare/protocol.go:159` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/store/service.go:929— src/store/service.go:929-934 | src/store/service.go:983-988 | src/store/service.go:1251-1256 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — 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.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) src/cli/cli.go:592— src/cli/cli.go:592-600 | src/webcli/webcli.go:176-184 | src/webcli/webcli.go:186-194 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/tcp/tcp.go:970— src/tcp/tcp.go:970-982 | src/tcp/tcp.go:983-999 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/tcp/tcp.go:970` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/cli/cli.go:250— src/cli/cli.go:250-264 | src/cli/cli.go:280-293 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Coverage not measured — JavaScript/TypeScript suite — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — web/ runs vitest but declares no coverage provider, so the suite can run and still produce no lcov — add `@vitest/coverage-v8` (or `@vitest/coverage-istanbul`) as a devDependency. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
P12 · CI test-gate honesty· Coverage collected but not gated · ×1
Coverage collected but not gated — CI collects a coverage report but no step enforces a minimum — coverage could halve and CI stays green. Add a step that fails the build when coverage drops below a floor (your coverage tool's minimum-threshold flag, or a coverage-gate action) so the number guards something. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: this repository's CI files AND its coverage configuration — the well-known coverage and test-runner config files, read at the repository root and inside workspace package directories two levels down, so a floor declared beside the tests rather than in the pipeline is credited — matched against the threshold settings this check knows by name. A floor set in your coverage service's web UI rather than in a committed file, or under a setting whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (104 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (104 matched lines × 2 locations) web/src/protocol/client.ts:393— web/src/protocol/client.ts:393 · web/src/protocol/client.ts:727 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 622 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's 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 — 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.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:72— web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:72 · web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs:134 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (19 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (19 matched lines × 2 locations) web/src/protocol/framing.ts:20— web/src/protocol/framing.ts:20 · web/src/protocol/framing.ts:58 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 140 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's 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 — 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.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (14 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (14 matched lines × 2 locations) web/src/protocol/storage.ts:142— web/src/protocol/storage.ts:142 · web/src/protocol/storage.ts:190 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 97 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's 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 — 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.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (13 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (13 matched lines × 2 locations) REDACTED:27— REDACTED:27 · web/src/protocol/sha256.ts:25 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 96 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's 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 — 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.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (10 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (10 matched lines × 2 locations) web/src/protocol/hash.ts:56— web/src/protocol/hash.ts:56 · web/src/public-relay.ts:88 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 65 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's 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 — 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) web/src/Blog.tsx:775— web/src/Blog.tsx:775 · web/src/Blog.tsx:807 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2 locations) web/src/App.tsx:1379— web/src/App.tsx:1379 · web/src/App.tsx:1716 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (6 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (6 matched lines × 2 locations) REDACTED:107— REDACTED:107 · web/src/public-relay.ts:95 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 50 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's 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 — 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.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) web/src/Blog.tsx:734— web/src/Blog.tsx:734 · web/src/Blog.tsx:1218 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Complex function App (cyclomatic 100, cognitive 84) web/src/App.tsx:663— App has cyclomatic complexity 100 and cognitive complexity 84; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function sendFiles (cyclomatic 33, cognitive 43) web/src/protocol/client.ts:370— sendFiles has cyclomatic complexity 33 and cognitive complexity 43; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function receiveFiles (cyclomatic 31, cognitive 40) web/src/protocol/client.ts:718— receiveFiles has cyclomatic complexity 31 and cognitive complexity 40; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 28, cognitive 29) web/src/Blog.tsx:216— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 28 and cognitive complexity 29; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function validateSenderInfo (cyclomatic 27, cognitive 34) web/src/protocol/metadata.ts:148— validateSenderInfo has cyclomatic complexity 27 and cognitive complexity 34; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function update (cyclomatic 25, cognitive 19) web/src/progress.ts:32— update has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 19; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 22) web/src/wasm/ssh-client.ts:61— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 22; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function restoreStoredUpload (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 20) web/src/App.tsx:284— restoreStoredUpload has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 20; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function validateSSHOffer (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 11) web/src/protocol/ssh.ts:90— validateSSHOffer has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 14, cognitive 18) web/src/Blog.tsx:351— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 14 and cognitive complexity 18; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function ProgressBlock (cyclomatic 14, cognitive 13) web/src/App.tsx:352— ProgressBlock has cyclomatic complexity 14 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function BlogVisualCard (cyclomatic 14, cognitive 13) web/src/Blog.tsx:677— BlogVisualCard has cyclomatic complexity 14 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 23) web/src/protocol/transport.ts:41— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 23; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function BlogBlockView (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 14) web/src/Blog.tsx:1001— BlogBlockView has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function SSHPanel (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 12) web/src/SSHPanel.tsx:44— SSHPanel has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 9) web/src/protocol/stored-crypto.ts:98— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 9; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 20) web/src/blog-posts.test.ts:11— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 20; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function responseError (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 16) web/src/protocol/stored.ts:224— responseError has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
REDACTED: 2126 lines of code REDACTED:1— REDACTED has 2126 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.
web/src/App.tsx: 1948 lines of code web/src/App.tsx:1— web/src/App.tsx has 1948 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.
web/src/Blog.tsx: 1258 lines of code web/src/Blog.tsx:1— web/src/Blog.tsx has 1258 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.
web/src/protocol/stored.ts: 1087 lines of code web/src/protocol/stored.ts:1— web/src/protocol/stored.ts has 1087 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.
web/src/protocol/client.ts: 909 lines of code web/src/protocol/client.ts:1— web/src/protocol/client.ts has 909 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.
R3 · Large Files· web/src/protocol/storage.ts · ×1
web/src/protocol/storage.ts: 568 lines of code web/src/protocol/storage.ts:1— web/src/protocol/storage.ts has 568 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.
web/src/protocol/ssh.ts: 402 lines of code web/src/protocol/ssh.ts:1— web/src/protocol/ssh.ts has 402 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.
No lint script — test ✓ · lint ✗ · typecheck ✓ — read from this repository's package.json scripts and corroborated against its CI workflows. A script counts when its name or command matches the step: `test` for the suite, `lint` or `prettier` for linting, `typecheck`/`type-check`/`tsc` for type checking. ✗ therefore means no script or CI step under those names was found, NOT that the step is absent from your pipeline — a task invoked by a runner this check does not read, or named something else entirely, is not seen and is worth confirming before acting on a cross. A ✓ means the wiring is DECLARED — a script or CI step under those names exists. It is not a statement that the step passes, or that it runs at all: nothing here installs a dependency or executes a suite.
Unused dependency 'ws' — Declared in web/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
`async` Promise executor web/scripts/benchmark-engine.mjs:135— The function passed to `new Promise(…)` is `async`. The constructor ignores what its executor returns, so anything this executor throws — every throw inside an `async` function, including after an `await` — rejects a Promise nobody holds instead of the one being constructed: the outer Promise never settles, whoever awaits it hangs, and the error is reported nowhere. If the body needs `await`, it does not need `new Promise` at all: make the enclosing function `async` and `return` the value (or `throw`) directly. If it wraps a callback API, keep the executor synchronous — call the API and `resolve`/`reject` from its callback — and do the awaiting outside it.
Duplicated predicate src/croc/ctx.go:46— `c != nil && c.stop != nil && c.stop.ctx != nil` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/croc/ctx.go, src/croc/relay_dial.go. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate main.go:60— `err != nil && !errors.Is(err, context.Canceled)` appears character-identically in 3 files — main.go, REDACTED, src/sshshare/ssh_server.go. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate REDACTED:3296— `index < 0 || index >= len(c.FilesToTransfer)` appears character-identically in 2 files — REDACTED, src/croc/file_preparation.go. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate src/cli/update.go:366— `response.StatusCode < http.StatusOK || response.StatusCode >= http.StatusMultipleChoices` appears character-identically in 3 files — src/cli/update.go, src/cli/updatecheck.go, src/publicrelay/umami.go. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate web/src/App.tsx:1247— `error instanceof DOMException && error.name === "AbortError"` appears character-identically in 2 files — web/src/App.tsx, web/src/protocol/stored.ts. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
README/code drift README.md:212— README advertises a Flutter app, but no Flutter/Dart project exists — searched for: `flutter`, `pubspec`, `dart`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (package.json and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, REDACTED); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift packaging/README.md:48— packaging/README.md documents the environment variable `GOBIN`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift internal/cli/README.md:3— internal/cli/README.md names `github.com/schollz/cli/v2`, but no file or folder `github.com/schollz/cli/v2` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
Silent fallback default on error internal/cli/flag_duration.go:99— `lookupDuration` turns a non-nil `err` into `return 0` — a failure becomes a plausible value and a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or return it. If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment on the `if` or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
Silent fallback default on error internal/cli/flag_int.go:100— `lookupInt` turns a non-nil `err` into `return 0` — a failure becomes a plausible value and a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or return it. If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment on the `if` or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
Silent fallback default on error internal/cli/flag_string.go:89— `lookupString` turns a non-nil `err` into `return ""` — a failure becomes a plausible value and a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or return it. If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment on the `if` or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
Documentation: no project overview README.md— The 'About' section lists features but does not state what the project is for and how to use its browser-only no-install version. Add a one-line description of croc's purpose (any-two-computer p2p file transfer with PAKE encryption) so readers can skip the feature list and find the 'No-install' section.
Documentation: no contributor guidance README.md— The document does not guide contributors on how to get involved, review changes, or submit pull requests. Add a 'Contributing' section covering PR process and the sponsor button link.
No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 2 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (22950 LoC, 139 module-visible types across 35 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.
No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
Logging is not universal — Only 1/2 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `.`.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 40797 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
Changelog looks stale/thin — The changelog this check read carries 1 versioned entry, against a bar of 3. Counted as either the distinct `x.y.z` versions it names (a link's target is not counted) or its version-shaped section headings (`## [1.2.0]`, `## V14.x.x`, `## Updates in 8.0.x`), whichever is the larger — so a log sectioned by minor series counts its sections, not its individual patch numbers. Entries recorded somewhere this check does not read — release notes generated at tag time from a generator config it did not recognise, or a log kept outside the repository — are not counted here, and this row is about what is re-findable in the tree rather than about how often you release.
R7 · Dead Code· Unused export 'storedShareFromLocation' · ×1
Unused export 'storedShareFromLocation' web/src/protocol/stored.ts:203— Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code· Unused export 'storedErrorMessage' · ×1
Unused export 'storedErrorMessage' web/src/protocol/stored.ts:1140— Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code· Unused private field 'sockets' · ×1
Unused private field 'sockets' web/src/protocol/client.ts:591— Nothing in its class reads or assigns this private field (for a constructor parameter property: it is stored and never read), and no string key or test reaches it by name. Remove it, or use it where it was meant to take effect.
X2 · Cancellation propagation· Not all functions that make a request accept a context.Context or an AbortSignal · ×1
Not all functions that make a request accept a context.Context or an AbortSignal — Only 37/39 functions that make a cancellable request (fetch, axios, ky, ofetch; net/http, net.Dial) accept a context.Context or an AbortSignal or pass one on, so a request keeps running after whatever wanted it has given up — a page navigated away from, a cancelled request, a shutdown, an expired deadline. Take a `signal` (Go: `ctx context.Context`) and hand it to the request; where nothing could ever cancel the call, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against how the function is used.
Null assertions (`!`) reduce the strict null checking score — ~2.0 `!` null assertions per 1k TypeScript source lines — 26 assertion(s) across the 12901 source line(s) of the 38 TypeScript file(s) read, which is the only code the operator asserts anything in (a `!` in a `.js` file is not this operator and was not counted, and one in a file whose null checking is off silences nothing). Densest: web/src/protocol/ssh.ts (8), REDACTED (5), web/src/App.tsx (3). Each one tells the compiler to trust the author about null, suppressing the very diagnostic `strictNullChecks` exists to produce.
Skipped (documented): (unnamed test) web/src/SSHPanel.test.tsx:53— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: declared with no body — a pending test the runner lists but never runs
Outdated: tailscale.com — `tailscale.com` is required at v1.104.1 in REDACTED, but v1.104.2 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get tailscale.com@v1.104.2 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 4 file(s) — `web/scripts/generate-blog-pages.mjs`, `web/src/protocol/codec.ts`, `web/src/protocol/relay.ts`, `web/src/protocol/stored.ts` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
Run 01a16b49-95ac-75fe-b634-70055968113c · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 59 · Warnings: 365 · Recommendations: 31 · Info: 2 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 24-10-2026 @ 00:22 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.