serenity — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

Band capped at Weak: the weakest category (Security, 0%) reads Critical — the cover never out-promises the category table.

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

The system holds a 63% health score, indicating a workable asset that carries significant operational risk. While the code itself is clean and the architecture is sound, the foundation for safe, reliable delivery is fragile. This gap threatens delivery speed and exposes the business to preventable outages and security incidents, despite the system’s moderate size and manageable rebuild cost of roughly €69,000.

The most critical vulnerability lies in Production Readiness, which scores only 49%. This lens measures whether the system is tested, observable, and secure enough for daily operation. The low score suggests that changes are likely to ripple unpredictably, increasing the cost of defects and the risk of unplanned downtime. Without robust release gates or dependency monitoring, a single bad build could reach users unchecked, turning minor errors into major business disruptions. This is where remediation offers the highest protection for the organization.

Conversely, the codebase exhibits Strong Engineering Discipline, with a 90% Code Health score and 84% Architecture rating. The logic is well-structured, and the domain modeling is mature, meaning new teams can understand the system quickly. This strength reduces the long-term cost of maintenance and makes future changes less risky. However, this internal quality is undermined by external operational gaps, particularly in security hygiene and release control, which leave the system exposed despite its internal cleanliness.

The highest-leverage action is to resolve the two leaked secrets found in the scanning reports. This is a critical security exposure that must be addressed immediately to prevent data breaches. Following this, the team should enable automated dependency updates and implement a release gate to stop bad builds before they reach users. These steps are low-effort but high-impact, directly reducing security risk and improving delivery confidence. While some areas like performance and accessibility were not measured, the current picture is sufficient to prioritize these urgent fixes. Focus first on securing the release pipeline and cleaning up credentials to stabilize the system’s operational foundation.

Code Health 90% ★ Exemplary Architecture 84% Adequate · gated by D26 Maturity 57% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 49% Adequate · gated by D13 Security 95% ★ Exemplary Event Sourcing 100% ★ Exemplary Performance 91% ★ Exemplary

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

Readiness 49% · 46% weightMaturity 57% · 25% weightArchitecture 84% · 14% weightCode Health 90% · 8% weightPerformance 91% · 4% weightSecurity 95% · 2% weightEvent Sourcing 100% · 1% weight

Raise Readiness 49 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 63 → ~69.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (23+)

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

D5 · Off the main sequence: serenity-voice-model
D6 · Low cohesion: EditGuild (LCOM4 20) src/builder/edit_guild.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: EditChannel (LCOM4 19) src/builder/edit_channel.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: CreateChannel (LCOM4 17) src/builder/create_channel.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: CreateCommand (LCOM4 13) src/builder/create_command.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: CreateScheduledEvent (LCOM4 9) src/builder/create_scheduled_event.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: CreateInteractionResponseMessage (LCOM4 8) src/builder/create_interaction_response.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: CreateInvite (LCOM4 8) src/builder/create_invite.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: CreateMessage (LCOM4 8) src/builder/create_message.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: EditAutoModRule (LCOM4 8) src/builder/edit_automod_rule.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: EditRole (LCOM4 8) src/builder/edit_role.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: ExecuteWebhook (LCOM4 8) src/builder/execute_webhook.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: CreateSoundboard (LCOM4 6) src/builder/create_soundboard.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: CreateThread (LCOM4 6) src/builder/create_thread.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: CreateForumPost (LCOM4 5) src/builder/create_forum_post.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: CreateInteractionResponseFollowup (LCOM4 5) src/builder/create_interaction_response_followup.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: EditWebhook (LCOM4 4) src/builder/edit_webhook.rs
D22 · Duplicate setter methods for the same property with different names (British vs American spelling). This forces users to choose between two identical methods or use both, creating confusion.
D22 · Inconsistent naming and signature for adding multiple embeds. `add_embeds` takes a single `CreateEmbed` instead of an iterator/collection, which is counter-intuitive for a plural method name. Additionally, `embed` and `embeds` appear to do the same thing (set/replace), while `add_embed` and `add_embeds` appear to do the same thing (append), but the plural variants have confusing single-item signatures.
D22 · Same inconsistency as in `CreateInteractionResponseMessage`. The plural `embeds` method takes a single item, which is misleading. The distinction between `embed` (set) and `add_embed` (append) is good, but the plural variants are poorly named/signatured.
D22 · Ambiguity between `add_files` and `files`. `add_files` implies appending, while `files` often implies setting/replacing in other contexts, but here both take an iterator. It is unclear if `files` replaces existing files or adds to them. Similarly, `add_file` vs `files` (singular vs plural iterator) is inconsistent with the embed pattern.
D22 · Same pattern inconsistency as embeds/files. `sticker_ids` and `add_sticker_ids` have confusingly similar names with potentially overlapping or unclear replacement vs append semantics. `sticker_id` (singular) vs `sticker_ids` (plural iterator) is inconsistent with `add_sticker_id` (singular) vs `add_sticker_ids` (plural iterator).
D22 · While not a direct duplicate, the naming `keep_existing_attachment` is verbose and inconsistent with typical builder patterns which might use `retain` or `exclude`. More importantly, `EditInteractionResponse` has `clear_attachments` and `keep_existing_attachment`, while `EditMessage` has `remove_all_attachments` and `remove_existing_attachment`. The verbs `keep` vs `remove` are opposites, but the API surface for managing attachments differs significantly between these two similar builders.

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €23,000–€120,000

Cost to rebuild	€23,000–€120,000 (0.2–0.7 person-years (384–1,217 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.9× (at 63% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.5 person-years of build effort (about ~€69,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 49% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.9× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED, REDACTED.

+11.5 pts · Low effort · Secret Scanning

Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.

+11.5 pts · Medium effort · Security & performance tooling

Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.

+11.5 pts · Medium effort · Deployment & Rollback

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk

This is a Medium asset (~0.5 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 49%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.5 person-years rebuild (58,327 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 49%

→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. The rest can wait behind it.

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

→ Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED, REDACTED.

Architecture — module dependency graph

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

Architecture — module dependency matrix

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

183 modules, 777 dependencies. 2 dependency cycles across 112 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 143 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 command_attr.structures	2 serenity.client.error	3 serenity.builder.create_interaction_response_followup	4 serenity.builder.edit_interaction_response	5 serenity.model.misc	6 serenity.model.timestamp	7 serenity.model.guild.role	8 serenity.model.user	9 serenity.model.application.command_interaction	10 serenity.model.application.modal_interaction	11 serenity.model.guild.scheduled_event	12 serenity.model.application.interaction	13 serenity.model.guild.audit_log	14 serenity.builder.create_interaction_response	15 serenity.model.guild	16 serenity.model.application.component_interaction	17 serenity.model.gateway	18 serenity.model.guild.partial_guild	19 serenity.gateway	20 serenity.client	21 serenity.http.client	22 serenity.model.channel.private_channel	23 serenity.model.channel	24 serenity.model.invite	25 serenity.model.event	26 serenity.collector	27 serenity.model.channel.guild_channel	28 serenity.model.guild.member	29 serenity.model.channel.reaction	30 serenity.builder.create_components	31 serenity.builder.edit_message	32 serenity.model.channel.message	33 serenity.builder.create_attachment	34 serenity.builder.create_message	35 serenity.model.id	36 serenity.cache	37 serenity.gateway.bridge.shard_runner	38 serenity.client.context	39 serenity.builder
1 command_attr.structures
2 serenity.client.error
3 serenity.builder.create_interaction_response_followup																														1		1	2					1	1
4 serenity.builder.edit_interaction_response																														1		1	2		1			1	1
5 serenity.model.misc		1																																	1
6 serenity.model.timestamp		2
7 serenity.model.guild.role	3				1																														6
8 serenity.model.user	1				4	1																				2		1						1	8
9 serenity.model.application.command_interaction	1		1	1				1				1		1														1							12			1
10 serenity.model.application.modal_interaction	1		1	1				1						1														1				1			4
11 serenity.model.guild.scheduled_event					1	1		2																				1							6
12 serenity.model.application.interaction	1							4	1	1						1												1							10
13 serenity.model.guild.audit_log	1										1																1								8
14 serenity.builder.create_interaction_response												1																		2			2					2	2
15 serenity.model.guild	4				2	2	1	2			1		1								1		1			2	1	2							13	1
16 serenity.model.application.component_interaction	1		1	1				1	1			1		1														1				1			4			1
17 serenity.model.gateway	1				1			9							1													1							5
18 serenity.model.guild.partial_guild	1				1		1						1		8											2	1	2							8
19 serenity.gateway								1									2
20 serenity.client								1									2		2		2														1	1
21 serenity.http.client													1							3									1				1		22
22 serenity.model.channel.private_channel						1		1													1		2								1			1	3
23 serenity.model.channel	2					1																1					2	1							9
24 serenity.model.invite					1	2		2			1				2								1					1							5
25 serenity.model.event					1	4	3	8			3	3	1		2		3	1					3	1			8	7	3			11			71	26
26 serenity.collector										1						1									1				1			1			15
27 serenity.model.channel.guild_channel	1					1															1		11			2		1			1			1	7
28 serenity.model.guild.member	3				2	3	1	4																			1								8
29 serenity.model.channel.reaction	1	1			1																							1							5
30 serenity.builder.create_components																													1
31 serenity.builder.edit_message																														1		1	2		1			1	1
32 serenity.model.channel.message	2				1	3		2				2											1			3	1	1	2		1				18	1
33 serenity.builder.create_attachment																																1			2
34 serenity.builder.create_message																													1	1		3	2		1			1	1
35 serenity.model.id						27	1	1					1		3			1			2	1	3	1		4	1	1			1	1		2		1
36 serenity.cache								2																											5
37 serenity.gateway.bridge.shard_runner																			1		2				1										1	2		1
38 serenity.client.context								1											1		1														2	1	1
39 serenity.builder																																						1
40 serenity.client.event_handler							1	2			1	1	1		2		1	1					1		21		2	2	1			1			6			3

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

At a glance — Code Health · 90% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 7.7 D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 7.0 D3 · Rust God Classes 8.9 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.7 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 10.0

At a glance — Architecture · 84% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

The Good

D5 · Rust Coupling 7.3 D6 · Rust Cohesion (LCOM4) 8.3 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 8.9 AX10 · Repo Code composition 8.2 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

The Bad

D22 · Rust Internal API Consistency 6.0

The Ugly

D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 3.3

At a glance — Maturity · 57% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · Rust Bus Factor 9.9 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · Rust Naming Consistency 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.8 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Bad

D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 6.1

The Ugly

M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 49% · Adequate · gated by D13 ·

The Good

D9 · Rust Test Distribution 10.0 D11 · Rust Test Reliability 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0

The Bad

P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 6.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 5.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0

The Ugly

D13 · Rust Secret Scanning 0.0

At a glance — Security · 95% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 8.4 D44 · Rust Platform End-of-Life 10.0

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

The Good

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

At a glance — Performance · 91% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 8.5 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2021 — Injection	33	High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures	2	High / Critical

Roadmap

Immediately resolve the two leaked secrets in REDACTED and REDACTED, and enable automated dependency scanning to strengthen security posture. Implement a release gate, such as draft releases or manual dispatch, to prevent bad builds from reaching users, while restricting public API exposure to protect internal implementation details. Finally, establish a structured repository for architecture decision records to document key design choices and their consequences.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED, REDACTED.	+11.5 pts	Low	Secret Scanning
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.	+11.5 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.	+11.5 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback
Keep implementation types off the public surface (Rust: `pub(crate)`, or keep the module private) so internals can change without breaking consumers.	+11.0 pts	Medium	Library API & versioning
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).	+8.0 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.	+7.5 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2).	+2.5 pts	Low	Documentation Quality
Resolve the 1 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with automod.rs.	+1.7 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 62 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 2% slop · 25% mixed · 73% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	2.4	Slop	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.5	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.6	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
src/builder/edit_message.rs	5.7	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)
src/framework/standard/mod.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
src/framework/standard/parse/mod.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
src/model/channel/message.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
command_attr/src/structures.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
src/model/application/command_interaction.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/model/channel/guild_channel.rs	6.3	Mixed	God Classes: TooManyMethods: GuildChannel
src/builder/create_command.rs	6.3	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (7 lines × 2)
src/builder/create_interaction_response.rs	6.3	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)
src/cache/mod.rs	6.5	Mixed	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: mod.rs ↔ custom_message.rs
src/builder/create_invite.rs	6.5	Mixed	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: create_invite.rs ↔ mod.rs
src/builder/edit_automod_rule.rs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/builder/edit_role.rs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/builder/create_interaction_response_followup.rs	7.0	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (9 lines × 3)
src/model/application/component_interaction.rs	7.0	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (8 lines × 2)
command_attr/src/lib.rs	7.0	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: command_attr::help (cognitive 24)

How the grades work

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

Critical — 38

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 — 144

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 9

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

Could not be resolved — 41

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. 35 of 39 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 39 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D11D13D15D16D17D19D21D22D26D28D29D34D35D44AX10AX3AX4AX9ES1ES2M1M2M3M4P1P10P3P4P6P8PF1PF3

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, 176 of 191 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0efb4-4b4e-768a-8d8b-7a222625fe86.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.rs) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 45 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, and no committed Cargo.lock resolves them to versions, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D14 License Compliance — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — this repository declares Cargo manifests but commits no Cargo.lock, so the set of crates it actually ships is not resolvable from the checkout: its declarations carry version RANGES, and grading whichever release happens to be newest today would be a verdict about a dependency graph this repository has not pinned. Commit the lock and this dimension grades the closure against crates.io. NOT a finding that this repository's licences are compliant: this dimension asserts nothing about its licensing in either direction.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — 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. Osv: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 'osv-scanner' exited 128 and produced no findings, and that exit code has no documented repo-side meaning — so this run measured nothing, and nothing here is a statement about the repository.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Osv: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 'osv-scanner' exited 128 and produced no findings, and that exit code has no documented repo-side meaning — so this run measured nothing, and nothing here is a statement about the repository.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

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

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity7.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

7 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was serenity::client::dispatch::update_cache_with_event at 79. A further 11 function(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being Route::ratelimiting_bucket at 112 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 7 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: src/http/routing.rs (Route::ratelimiting_bucket at 112), src/model/guild/audit_log/change.rs (Change::key at 82), src/client/event_handler.rs (FullEvent::snake_case_name at 79), command_attr/src/structures.rs (Permissions::from_str at 52), src/model/error.rs (Error::fmt at 26), and 2 more not listed here. They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

serenity::client::dispatch::update_cache_with_event (cyclomatic 79) · ×3src/client/dispatch.rs:95

StandardFramework::dispatch (cyclomatic 31) · ×2src/framework/standard/mod.rs:612

EventVisitor::visit_map (cyclomatic 32)voice-model/src/event/mod.rs:103

MessageUpdateEvent::apply_to_message (cyclomatic 29)src/model/event.rs:610

What to do

Resolve the 3 serenity finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with mod.rs (2), dispatch.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 StandardFramework finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with mod.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 EventVisitor finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with mod.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity7.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

20 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was StandardFramework::dispatch at 58.

serenity::framework::standard::help_commands::nested_commands_search (cognitive 44) · ×10src/framework/standard/help_commands.rs:299

StandardFramework::dispatch (cognitive 58) · ×2src/framework/standard/mod.rs:612

ShardRunner::run (cognitive 29)src/gateway/bridge/shard_runner.rs:102

TicketCounter::take (cognitive 28)src/framework/standard/structures/buckets.rs:173

MessageUpdateEvent::apply_to_message (cognitive 28)src/model/event.rs:610

+ 5 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 10 serenity finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with mod.rs (5), help_commands.rs (3), content_safe.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 StandardFramework finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with mod.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ShardRunner finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with shard_runner.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

TooManyMethods: Http · ×9REDACTED:197

FileTooLong: REDACTED · ×7REDACTED

TooManyFields: Guild · ×5src/model/guild/mod.rs:111

ClassTooLong: Http · ×3REDACTED:197

FunctionTooLong: serenity::client::dispatch::update_cache_with_event · ×3src/client/dispatch.rs:95

What to do

Resolve the 9 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with mod.rs (2), id.rs (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 7 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with REDACTED, mod.rs, help_commands.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 TooManyFields finding(s) in God Classes — start with mod.rs, partial_guild.rs, message.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.7 / 10Stronggated by 41 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

38 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 3 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×3src/builder/edit_message.rs:64

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×3command_attr/src/structures.rs:153

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×3REDACTED:2773

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) · ×3command_attr/src/lib.rs:108

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×3REDACTED:551

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

What to do

Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with REDACTED (2), edit_message.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with structures.rs, args.rs, invite.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with REDACTED, mod.rs, create_interaction_response.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 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 · Coupling7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 production modules (Cargo), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 1 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 2 of the 3 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, or have no source directory of their own).

Off the main sequence: serenity-voice-model

What to do

Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

16 of 112 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: EditGuild (LCOM4 20) · ×16src/builder/edit_guild.rs:15

What to do

Resolve the 16 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with edit_guild.rs, edit_channel.rs, create_channel.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.

Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.

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

109 test methods: 98 unit, 11 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 109 `#[test]` function(s) across 30 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 1 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). Rust (repository root, 30 test files): measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · Secret Scanning0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

2 secret(s) detected.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/builder/create_poll.rs. Counted over 148 of the 182 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Stronggated by 14 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

14 deducted task-comment markers across 58327 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 · ×11examples/e15_simple_dashboard/src/main.rs:320

FixmeComment · ×3command_attr/src/structures.rs:116

What to do

Resolve the 11 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with message.rs (2), main.rs, edit_role.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with mod.rs (2), structures.rs. — 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's single root README (README.md) is clear and well-structured: a strong overview of Serenity as the Discord Rust library, links to examples, poise, songbird, gateway docs, and MSRV policy; an example bot showing code with an unshown clipped clip marker; and a dedicated examples directory that documents its own subdirectories. The four READMEs in the examples subtree (e.g., e14_slash_commands) each document their own directories rather than the repository root, so they are not flagged by the per-document rules but do not contradict the single-root overview.

Documentation: no project overview · ×2README.md

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyAdequate◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

6 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 559 exposed types.

Duplicate setter methods for the same property with different names (British vs American spelling). This forces users to choose between two identical methods or use both, creating confusion.

Inconsistent naming and signature for adding multiple embeds. `add_embeds` takes a single `CreateEmbed` instead of an iterator/collection, which is counter-intuitive for a plural method name. Additionally, `embed` and `embeds` appear to do the same thing (set/replace), while `add_embed` and `add_embeds` appear to do the same thing (append), but the plural variants have confusing single-item signatures.

Same inconsistency as in `CreateInteractionResponseMessage`. The plural `embeds` method takes a single item, which is misleading. The distinction between `embed` (set) and `add_embed` (append) is good, but the plural variants are poorly named/signatured.

Ambiguity between `add_files` and `files`. `add_files` implies appending, while `files` often implies setting/replacing in other contexts, but here both take an iterator. It is unclear if `files` replaces existing files or adds to them. Similarly, `add_file` vs `files` (singular vs plural iterator) is inconsistent with the embed pattern.

Same pattern inconsistency as embeds/files. `sticker_ids` and `add_sticker_ids` have confusingly similar names with potentially overlapping or unclear replacement vs append semantics. `sticker_id` (singular) vs `sticker_ids` (plural iterator) is inconsistent with `add_sticker_id` (singular) vs `add_sticker_ids` (plural iterator).

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

What to do

Resolve the 1 Duplicate setter methods for the same property with different names… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming and signature for adding multiple embeds.… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Same inconsistency as in `CreateInteractionResponseMessage`. The plural… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion3.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 3 build units (Cargo) 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)8.4 / 10Adequategated by 33 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

33 finding(s): 0 critical, 33 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 32 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.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 32 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 (32 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness6.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

56 of 148 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/model/guild/automod.rs. Counted over 148 of the 182 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned knowledgesrc/model/guild/automod.rs

Further orphaned files (smaller)

What to do

Resolve the 1 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with automod.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling8.9 / 10Adequategated by 2 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: component_interaction.rs↔modal_interaction.rs 81%; create_interaction_response.rs↔edit_interaction_response.rs 77%; mod.rs↔custom_message.rs 73%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: mod.rs ↔ custom_message.rs · ×2src/cache/mod.rs

Change coupling: component_interaction.rs ↔ modal_interaction.rs · ×9src/model/application/component_interaction.rs

Change coupling clique: create_interaction_response.rs, create_interaction_response_followup.rs, edit_interaction_response.rssrc/builder/create_interaction_response.rs

Change-coupling hub: create_embed.rs → create_invite.rs, edit_guild.rs, edit_profile.rssrc/builder/create_embed.rs

What to do

Resolve the 2 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with mod.rs, create_invite.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 9 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with component_interaction.rs, command_interaction.rs, guild_channel.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Change coupling clique finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with create_interaction_response.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)6.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 20 of 22 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.8 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

What to do

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

558/639 types (87%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

What to do

Keep implementation types off the public surface (Rust: `pub(crate)`, or keep the module private) so internals can change without breaking consumers.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

What to do

Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether database schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than being auto-created from the model at startup.

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage; off .NET, a file scan of dependency manifests, migration histories (Flyway, Liquibase, Alembic, Django, Rails, Prisma, TypeORM, Knex/Sequelize, golang-migrate, goose, Laravel, Doctrine, Diesel/sqlx) and schema auto-create in production source or config. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline8.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	90%	Exemplary	Solid.
Architecture	84%	Adequate — gated by D26	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	57%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	49%	Adequate — gated by D13	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	95%	Exemplary	Solid.
Event Sourcing	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Performance	91%	Exemplary	Solid.

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 — 77 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: Rust with no dependency-injection crate has no container to hand one lifetime's instance to another — every value is owned by the code that builds it, and the borrow checker rejects a longer-lived value keeping a borrow of a shorter-lived one.
AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: Rust's compiler refuses unsynchronised shared mutation — a value shared across threads must be Sync — so the race this check looks for cannot be written.
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~3354 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 45 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, and no committed Cargo.lock resolves them to versions, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D14 License Compliance — Crate licences not graded — this Cargo repository commits no Cargo.lock
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 24 value object(s); 2 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P2 Observability — This repository's Rust source (3 module(s), 182 file(s) read) declares no entry point and bootstraps no server, and nothing here deploys a service — it is a library, run inside whatever hosts it, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. If it grows a binary or a service, the dimension reactivates.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Rust source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Rust spells out every heap allocation and makes borrowed slices (&[T], &str) its ordinary parameter types, so the allocation-aware style this card rewards elsewhere is the language's baseline rather than a rung to climb.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — 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.

Critical — 38 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 7 more in this group — see findings.md.

D13 · Secret Scanning · Leaked secret · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×2

Boundary-crossing change coupling: mod.rs ↔ custom_message.rs src/cache/mod.rs — `src/cache/mod.rs` (context cache) and `src/utils/custom_message.rs` (context utils) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 73% of the time (11 of the 15 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 11 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `1099d510` Use custom enum for `Message::nonce` instead of `json::Value` (#1990); `3debed8b` Add missing Message fields (#2214); `9e10d546` Add `banner` and `accent_color` fields to `User` (#1469) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: create_invite.rs ↔ mod.rs src/builder/create_invite.rs — `src/builder/create_invite.rs` (context builder) and `src/cache/mod.rs` (context cache) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 52% of the time (15 of the 29 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 15 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `49640ea0` Clean up documentation examples (#2628); `2afb05b1` Clean up previous changes to cache (#1936); `1897005c` Expose `dashmap`'s wrapped `Ref` to reduce cloning (#1917) — run `git show` on any of them.

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

REDACTED

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned knowledge · ×1

Orphaned knowledge src/model/guild/automod.rs — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away, so if it breaks, no one currently understands it. It does carry its own tests, so the behaviour is pinned even though the understanding is gone: schedule a read-through, using those tests as the specification, before the next change lands here.

Serious — 144 finding(s)

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×16

Low cohesion: EditGuild (LCOM4 20) src/builder/edit_guild.rs:15 — EditGuild's methods fall into 20 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 20 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: EditChannel (LCOM4 19) src/builder/edit_channel.rs:35 — EditChannel's methods fall into 19 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 19 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: CreateChannel (LCOM4 17) src/builder/create_channel.rs:16 — CreateChannel's methods fall into 17 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 17 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: CreateCommand (LCOM4 13) src/builder/create_command.rs:302 — CreateCommand's methods fall into 13 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 13 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: CreateScheduledEvent (LCOM4 9) src/builder/create_scheduled_event.rs:13 — CreateScheduledEvent's methods fall into 9 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 9 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: CreateInteractionResponseMessage (LCOM4 8) src/builder/create_interaction_response.rs:179 — CreateInteractionResponseMessage's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: CreateInvite (LCOM4 8) src/builder/create_invite.rs:30 — CreateInvite's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: CreateMessage (LCOM4 8) src/builder/create_message.rs:56 — CreateMessage's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: EditAutoModRule (LCOM4 8) src/builder/edit_automod_rule.rs:19 — EditAutoModRule's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: EditRole (LCOM4 8) src/builder/edit_role.rs:48 — EditRole's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: ExecuteWebhook (LCOM4 8) src/builder/execute_webhook.rs:61 — ExecuteWebhook's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: CreateSoundboard (LCOM4 6) src/builder/create_soundboard.rs:15 — CreateSoundboard's methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: CreateThread (LCOM4 6) src/builder/create_thread.rs:14 — CreateThread's methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: CreateForumPost (LCOM4 5) src/builder/create_forum_post.rs:13 — CreateForumPost's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: CreateInteractionResponseFollowup (LCOM4 5) src/builder/create_interaction_response_followup.rs:23 — CreateInteractionResponseFollowup's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: EditWebhook (LCOM4 4) src/builder/edit_webhook.rs:13 — EditWebhook's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×11

TodoComment examples/e15_simple_dashboard/src/main.rs:320 — // TODO: If you are going to copy this to your crate, update the crate name in the string — 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/builder/edit_role.rs:93 — // TODO: Do we want to download role.icon? — 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/builder/edit_automod_rule.rs:142 — // TODO: Enforce these fields (maybe with a separate CreateAutoModRule builder). — 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/client/event_handler.rs:31 — // TODO: do some boxing to fix this — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment REDACTED:3704 — // TODO: according to Discord, this returns different data; namely https://docs.discord.com/developers/resources/guild#guild-widget-object.
TodoComment src/model/gateway.rs:274 — // TODO: should really go over these fields at some point and check them. — 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/model/application/command_interaction.rs:78 — // TODO(next): This is now always serialized. — 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/model/channel/message.rs:137 — // TODO: maybe introduce an `enum MessageLocation { Dm, Guild(GuildId) }` and store — 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/model/channel/message.rs:1169 — // TODO(next): Remove this — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/model/guild/automod.rs:16 — // TODO: should be renamed to a less ambiguous name — 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/model/guild/audit_log/mod.rs:359 — // TODO: should be renamed to a less ambiguous name — 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · serenity · ×10

serenity::framework::standard::help_commands::nested_commands_search (cognitive 44) src/framework/standard/help_commands.rs:299 — serenity::framework::standard::help_commands::nested_commands_search has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (33 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 27). 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.
serenity::utils::content_safe::clean_mentions (cognitive 38) src/utils/content_safe.rs:161 — serenity::utils::content_safe::clean_mentions has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (32 pts), match/switch 1 (5 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 28). 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.
serenity::framework::standard::parse::permissions_in (cognitive 31) src/framework/standard/parse/mod.rs:25 — serenity::framework::standard::parse::permissions_in has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (23 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 14). 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.
serenity::framework::standard::parse::command (cognitive 24) src/framework/standard/parse/mod.rs:425 — serenity::framework::standard::parse::command has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (16 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 14). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function item 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.
serenity::utils::parse_quotes (cognitive 24) src/utils/mod.rs:339 — serenity::utils::parse_quotes has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (21 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.
serenity::utils::content_safe::clean_mention (cognitive 22) src/utils/content_safe.rs:217 — serenity::utils::content_safe::clean_mention has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (21 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 12). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
serenity::utils::parse_emoji (cognitive 22) src/utils/mod.rs:272 — serenity::utils::parse_emoji has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (14 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (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.
serenity::framework::standard::help_commands::create_customised_help_data (cognitive 20) src/framework/standard/help_commands.rs:818 — serenity::framework::standard::help_commands::create_customised_help_data has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
serenity::framework::standard::help_commands::nested_group_command_search (cognitive 19) src/framework/standard/help_commands.rs:436 — serenity::framework::standard::help_commands::nested_group_command_search has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (14 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts), 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.
serenity::framework::standard::parse::check_discrepancy (cognitive 19) src/framework/standard/parse/mod.rs:198 — serenity::framework::standard::parse::check_discrepancy has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), boolean chains 7, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (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.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×9

TooManyMethods: Http REDACTED:197 — TooManyMethods — 206 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 176 over it, 6.87× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Guild src/model/guild/mod.rs:111 — TooManyMethods — 113 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 83 over it, 3.77× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: GuildId src/model/id.rs:194 — TooManyMethods — 102 methods, declared across 2 files: guild/guild_id.rs (99), model/id.rs (3). The bar is 30 methods; this is 72 over it, 3.40× 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: PartialGuild src/model/guild/partial_guild.rs:40 — TooManyMethods — 84 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 54 over it, 2.80× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: ChannelId src/model/id.rs:191 — TooManyMethods — 59 methods, declared across 2 files: channel/channel_id.rs (56), model/id.rs (3). The bar is 30 methods; this is 29 over it, 1.97× 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: GuildChannel src/model/channel/guild_channel.rs:44 — TooManyMethods — 45 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 15 over it, 1.50× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: MessageBuilder src/utils/message_builder.rs:36 — TooManyMethods — 44 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 14 over it, 1.47× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Message src/model/channel/message.rs:36 — TooManyMethods — 37 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 7 over it, 1.23× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Cache src/cache/mod.rs:179 — TooManyMethods — 35 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 5 over it, 1.17× 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.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×9

Change coupling: component_interaction.rs ↔ modal_interaction.rs src/model/application/component_interaction.rs — `src/model/application/component_interaction.rs` and `src/model/application/modal_interaction.rs` change together 81% of the time (21 of the 26 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 21 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `c6219206` Add `attachment_size_limit` field (#3456); `d57a8cf3` Add support for new monetization APIs (#2560); `57a18416` Remove "does not work ephemeral" statement from `edit_response` (#2395) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: command_interaction.rs ↔ modal_interaction.rs src/model/application/command_interaction.rs — `src/model/application/command_interaction.rs` and `src/model/application/modal_interaction.rs` change together 73% of the time (19 of the 26 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 19 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `c6219206` Add `attachment_size_limit` field (#3456); `d57a8cf3` Add support for new monetization APIs (#2560); `57a18416` Remove "does not work ephemeral" statement from `edit_response` (#2395) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: guild_channel.rs ↔ private_channel.rs src/model/channel/guild_channel.rs — `src/model/channel/guild_channel.rs` and `src/model/channel/private_channel.rs` change together 73% of the time (24 of the 33 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 24 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `2951d988` Deprecate Channel::is_nsfw (#2791); `c0bacad4` Turn generic parameters with `IntoIterator` bounds into `impl IntoIte…; `fa21d4ac` Make `Typing::start_typing` infallible (#2350) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: edit_webhook_message.rs ↔ execute_webhook.rs src/builder/edit_webhook_message.rs — `src/builder/edit_webhook_message.rs` and `src/builder/execute_webhook.rs` change together 64% of the time (9 of the 14 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) 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 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `b4835360` Add `Http::default_allowed_mentions` (#2834); `2a810625` Add CreateAttachment.description and EditAttachment (#2575); `41d634f1` Fix compilation with just the `http` and `builder` features enabled (… — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: shard_messenger.rs ↔ shard.rs src/gateway/bridge/shard_messenger.rs — `src/gateway/bridge/shard_messenger.rs` and `src/gateway/shard.rs` change together 61% of the time (19 of the 31 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 19 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9f16e5aa` Add soundboard gateway events (#3435); `50f01174` Revert "Clean up dispatch and unnecessary clones in client (#2019)" (at that commit the file was still `src/client/bridge/gateway/shard_messenger.rs`); `f96f354e` Clean up dispatch and unnecessary clones in client (#2019) (at that commit the file was still `src/client/bridge/gateway/shard_messenger.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: shard_runner_message.rs ↔ shard.rs src/gateway/bridge/shard_runner_message.rs — `src/gateway/bridge/shard_runner_message.rs` and `src/gateway/shard.rs` change together 59% of the time (10 of the 17 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 10 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9f16e5aa` Add soundboard gateway events (#3435); `888bd4ca` Fix `http` and `gateway` features (#2172) (at that commit the file was still `src/client/bridge/gateway/shard_runner_message.rs`); `5bf0d350` Switch to `tokio-tungstenite` (#2036) (at that commit the file was still `src/client/bridge/gateway/shard_runner_message.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: create_message.rs ↔ edit_guild.rs src/builder/create_message.rs — `src/builder/create_message.rs` and `src/builder/edit_guild.rs` change together 50% of the time (13 of the 26 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 13 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `7b3389bb` Remove unnecessary `#[allow(...)]`s (#2597); `f8bc937b` Simplify constructor functions for `Http` (#1840); `70382290` Fix usage of builder pattern across code, docs, and examples (#1764) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: edit_message.rs ↔ edit_webhook_message.rs src/builder/edit_message.rs — `src/builder/edit_message.rs` and `src/builder/edit_webhook_message.rs` change together 50% of the time (7 of the 14 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) 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 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `5bfce60f` Add `flags` to `EditWebhookMessage` and `EditInteractionResponse` (#3…; `b4835360` Add `Http::default_allowed_mentions` (#2834); `2a810625` Add CreateAttachment.description and EditAttachment (#2575) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: create_command.rs ↔ create_command_permission.rs src/builder/create_command.rs — `src/builder/create_command.rs` and `src/builder/create_command_permission.rs` change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) 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 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `ebc02cea` Rename `application_command` to `command` everywhere (#2358); `3c602950` Remove unneeded and deprecated application commands builders. (#2078) (at that commit the files were still `src/builder/create_application_command.rs` and `src/builder/create_application_command_permission.rs`); `3e454cc5` Replace feature gated `simd-json` trait imports with `json::prelude::… (at that commit the files were still `src/builder/create_application_command.rs` and `src/builder/create_application_command_permission.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×7

FileTooLong: REDACTED REDACTED — FileTooLong — 3189 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 97% of them inside a single declaration: Http (3 blocks, 197-5268). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 2689 over it, 6.38× 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: guild/mod.rs src/model/guild/mod.rs — FileTooLong — 1230 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 79% of them inside a single declaration: Guild (2 blocks, 111-2643). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 730 over it, 2.46× 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: standard/help_commands.rs src/framework/standard/help_commands.rs — FileTooLong — 856 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 356 over it, 1.71× 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: model/event.rs src/model/event.rs — FileTooLong — 809 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 309 over it, 1.62× 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: guild/guild_id.rs src/model/guild/guild_id.rs — FileTooLong — 699 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 88% of them inside a single declaration: GuildId (11 blocks, 42-1883). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 199 over it, 1.40× 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: channel/message.rs src/model/channel/message.rs — FileTooLong — 692 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 192 over it, 1.38× 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: guild/partial_guild.rs src/model/guild/partial_guild.rs — FileTooLong — 652 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 95% of them inside a single declaration: PartialGuild (5 blocks, 40-1720). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 152 over it, 1.30× 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.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyFields · ×5

TooManyFields: Guild src/model/guild/mod.rs:111 — TooManyFields — 51 stored fields beside 113 methods. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 21 over it, 1.70× 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: PartialGuild src/model/guild/partial_guild.rs:40 — TooManyFields — 40 stored fields beside 84 methods. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 10 over it, 1.33× the bar. This is width in DATA, not behaviour: every reader that takes the whole type couples to all of its fields, so a change to any one of them is a change every reader has to be checked against. To reduce it, group the fields that are read together by the same callers into a smaller type of their own, and have this one hold that type as a single member — each reader then names only the group it uses.
TooManyFields: Message src/model/channel/message.rs:36 — TooManyFields — 35 stored fields beside 37 methods. 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.
TooManyFields: GuildChannel src/model/channel/guild_channel.rs:44 — TooManyFields — 32 stored fields beside 45 methods. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 2 over it, 1.07× 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: MessageUpdateEvent src/model/event.rs:560 — TooManyFields — 32 stored fields beside 1 method. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 2 over it, 1.07× 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · serenity · ×3

serenity::client::dispatch::update_cache_with_event (cyclomatic 79) src/client/dispatch.rs:95 — serenity::client::dispatch::update_cache_with_event has cyclomatic complexity 79 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
serenity::framework::standard::parse::permissions_in (cyclomatic 16) src/framework/standard/parse/mod.rs:25 — serenity::framework::standard::parse::permissions_in 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.
serenity::framework::standard::parse::check_discrepancy (cyclomatic 16) src/framework/standard/parse/mod.rs:198 — serenity::framework::standard::parse::check_discrepancy 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×3

FixmeComment command_attr/src/structures.rs:116 — // FIXME: Replace with `Vec::drain_filter` once it is stable. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment src/framework/standard/mod.rs:724 — // FIXME: Get rid of this allocation. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment src/framework/standard/parse/mod.rs:11 — // FIXME: Add the `http` parameter to `Guild::user_permissions_in`. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×3

ClassTooLong: Http REDACTED:197 — ClassTooLong — 3081 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 206 methods, 3 blocks, lines 197-5268. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 2681 over it, 7.70× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Guild src/model/guild/mod.rs:111 — ClassTooLong — 975 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 113 methods, 2 blocks, lines 111-2643. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 575 over it, 2.44× 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: PartialGuild src/model/guild/partial_guild.rs:40 — ClassTooLong — 618 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 84 methods, 5 blocks, lines 40-1720. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 218 over it, 1.55× 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.

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×3

FunctionTooLong: serenity::client::dispatch::update_cache_with_event src/client/dispatch.rs:95 — FunctionTooLong — serenity::client::dispatch::update_cache_with_event runs 271 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 171 over it, 2.71× 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: command_attr::help command_attr/src/lib.rs:279 — FunctionTooLong — command_attr::help runs 185 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 85 over it, 1.85× 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: command_attr::command command_attr/src/lib.rs:96 — FunctionTooLong — command_attr::command runs 106 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 6 over it, 1.06× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/builder/edit_message.rs:64 — src/builder/edit_message.rs:64-77 | src/builder/edit_webhook_message.rs:50-63 — before extracting anything, compare `src/builder/edit_message.rs` and `src/builder/edit_webhook_message.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) REDACTED:2159 — REDACTED:2159-2172 | REDACTED:3884-3897 — 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) REDACTED:2257 — REDACTED:2257-2270 | REDACTED:4084-4097 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) command_attr/src/structures.rs:153 — command_attr/src/structures.rs:153-165 | command_attr/src/structures.rs:252-264 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/framework/standard/args.rs:790 — src/framework/standard/args.rs:790-802 | src/framework/standard/args.rs:833-845 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/model/invite.rs:100 — src/model/invite.rs:100-112 | src/model/invite.rs:324-336 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) REDACTED:2773 — REDACTED:2773-2784 | REDACTED:4025-4036 — 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) src/model/guild/mod.rs:1759 — src/model/guild/mod.rs:1759-1770 | src/model/guild/mod.rs:1816-1827 — 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) src/builder/create_interaction_response.rs:291 — src/builder/create_interaction_response.rs:291-302 | src/builder/create_interaction_response_followup.rs:148-159 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) · ×3

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) command_attr/src/lib.rs:108 — command_attr/src/lib.rs:108-118 | command_attr/src/lib.rs:626-636 | command_attr/src/lib.rs:755-765 — 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.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) REDACTED:2115 — REDACTED:2115-2125 | REDACTED:2624-2634 | REDACTED:4754-4764 — 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.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) REDACTED:3039 — REDACTED:3039-3049 | REDACTED:3067-3077 | REDACTED:3095-3105 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) REDACTED:551 — REDACTED:551-560 | REDACTED:2111-2120 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/model/guild/mod.rs:1861 — src/model/guild/mod.rs:1861-1870 | src/model/guild/mod.rs:1906-1915 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/utils/message_builder.rs:555 — src/utils/message_builder.rs:555-564 | src/utils/message_builder.rs:568-577 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) command_attr/src/lib.rs:476 — command_attr/src/lib.rs:476-483 | command_attr/src/lib.rs:705-712 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/model/application/component_interaction.rs:236 — src/model/application/component_interaction.rs:236-243 | src/model/application/modal_interaction.rs:200-207 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/model/channel/channel_id.rs:1280 — src/model/channel/channel_id.rs:1280-1288 | src/model/guild/guild_id.rs:1962-1969 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/builder/create_command.rs:131 — src/builder/create_command.rs:131-137 | src/builder/create_command.rs:187-193 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/cache/event.rs:512 — src/cache/event.rs:512-518 | src/cache/event.rs:529-535 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/model/channel/reaction.rs:76 — src/model/channel/reaction.rs:76-82 | src/model/voice.rs:56-63 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · StandardFramework · ×2

StandardFramework::dispatch (cyclomatic 31) src/framework/standard/mod.rs:612 — StandardFramework::dispatch has cyclomatic complexity 31 (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.
StandardFramework::should_fail (cyclomatic 21) src/framework/standard/mod.rs:210 — StandardFramework::should_fail has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · StandardFramework · ×2

StandardFramework::dispatch (cognitive 58) src/framework/standard/mod.rs:612 — StandardFramework::dispatch has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (50 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (3 pts), match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 28). 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.
StandardFramework::should_fail (cognitive 34) src/framework/standard/mod.rs:210 — StandardFramework::should_fail has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (24 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2 (nesting depth added 14). 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) command_attr/src/lib.rs:96 — command_attr/src/lib.rs:96-234 | command_attr/src/lib.rs:279-529 | command_attr/src/lib.rs:614-734 | command_attr/src/lib.rs:747-815 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) command_attr/src/lib.rs:96 — command_attr/src/lib.rs:96-234 | command_attr/src/lib.rs:279-529 | command_attr/src/lib.rs:747-815 | command_attr/src/lib.rs:916-958 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) command_attr/src/structures.rs:168 — command_attr/src/structures.rs:168-176 | command_attr/src/structures.rs:266-274 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/framework/standard/parse/mod.rs:483 — src/framework/standard/parse/mod.rs:483-491 | src/framework/standard/parse/mod.rs:495-503 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/builder/edit_message.rs:191 — src/builder/edit_message.rs:191-195 | src/builder/edit_webhook_message.rs:151-155 — before extracting anything, compare `src/builder/edit_message.rs` and `src/builder/edit_webhook_message.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/builder/edit_message.rs:198 — src/builder/edit_message.rs:198-202 | src/builder/edit_webhook_message.rs:158-162 — before extracting anything, compare `src/builder/edit_message.rs` and `src/builder/edit_webhook_message.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EventVisitor · ×1

EventVisitor::visit_map (cyclomatic 32) voice-model/src/event/mod.rs:103 — EventVisitor::visit_map has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MessageUpdateEvent · ×1

MessageUpdateEvent::apply_to_message (cyclomatic 29) src/model/event.rs:610 — MessageUpdateEvent::apply_to_message has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ShardRunner · ×1

ShardRunner::run (cognitive 29) src/gateway/bridge/shard_runner.rs:102 — ShardRunner::run has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TicketCounter · ×1

TicketCounter::take (cognitive 28) src/framework/standard/structures/buckets.rs:173 — TicketCounter::take has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (28 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MessageUpdateEvent · ×1

MessageUpdateEvent::apply_to_message (cognitive 28) src/model/event.rs:610 — MessageUpdateEvent::apply_to_message has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 28. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · command_attr · ×1

command_attr::help (cognitive 24) command_attr/src/lib.rs:279 — command_attr::help has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (22 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 5). Most of this is not in the body itself: 10 of the 24 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function item inside it that branches (produce_strike_text). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ComponentInteractionCollector · ×1

ComponentInteractionCollector::stream (cognitive 20) src/collector.rs:99 — ComponentInteractionCollector::stream has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (ModalInteractionCollector::stream) 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ModalInteractionCollector · ×1

ModalInteractionCollector::stream (cognitive 20) src/collector.rs:99 — ModalInteractionCollector::stream has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (ComponentInteractionCollector::stream) 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Guild · ×1

Guild::user_permissions_in_ (cognitive 19) src/model/guild/mod.rs:2024 — Guild::user_permissions_in_ has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ReactionCollector · ×1

ReactionCollector::stream (cognitive 17) src/collector.rs:99 — ReactionCollector::stream has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), match/switch 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.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Duplicate setter methods for the same property with different names (British vs American spelling). This forces users to choose between two identical methods or use both, creating confusion. · ×1

Duplicate setter methods for the same property with different names (British vs American spelling). This forces users to choose between two identical methods or use both, creating confusion. — Keep only one (preferably `color` for broader API compatibility, or `colour` if targeting UK-centric libraries), or mark one as deprecated. (signatures: CreateEmbed.colour(colour: C): Self | CreateEmbed.color(colour: C): Self)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent naming and signature for adding multiple embeds. `add_embeds` takes a single `CreateEmbed` instead of an iterator/collection, which is counter-intuitive for a plural method name. Additionally, `embed` and `embeds` appear to do the same thing (set/replace), while `add_embed` and `add_embeds` appear to do the same thing (append), but the plural variants have confusing single-item signatures. · ×1

Inconsistent naming and signature for adding multiple embeds. `add_embeds` takes a single `CreateEmbed` instead of an iterator/collection, which is counter-intuitive for a plural method name. Additionally, `embed` and `embeds` appear to do the same thing (set/replace), while `add_embed` and `add_embeds` appear to do the same thing (append), but the plural variants have confusing single-item signatures. — Unify to `embeds(iter)` for setting/replacing and `add_embed(embed)` for appending. Remove the singular `embed`/`add_embed` if they are redundant, or ensure `embeds` accepts an iterator. (signatures: CreateInteractionResponseMessage.add_embed(embed: CreateEmbed): Self | CreateInteractionResponseMessage.add_embeds(embeds: CreateEmbed): Self | CreateInteractionResponseMessage.embed(embed: CreateEmbed): Self | CreateInteractionResponseMessage.embeds(embeds: CreateEmbed): Self)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Same inconsistency as in `CreateInteractionResponseMessage`. The plural `embeds` method takes a single item, which is misleading. The distinction between `embed` (set) and `add_embed` (append) is good, but the plural variants are poorly named/signatured. · ×1

Same inconsistency as in `CreateInteractionResponseMessage`. The plural `embeds` method takes a single item, which is misleading. The distinction between `embed` (set) and `add_embed` (append) is good, but the plural variants are poorly named/signatured. — Rename `embeds` to `set_embeds` or change signature to accept an iterator. Rename `add_embeds` to `add_embed` if it only takes one, or fix the signature to take multiple. (signatures: CreateMessage.add_embed(embed: CreateEmbed): Self | CreateMessage.add_embeds(embeds: CreateEmbed): Self | CreateMessage.embed(embed: CreateEmbed): Self | CreateMessage.embeds(embeds: CreateEmbed): Self)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Ambiguity between `add_files` and `files`. `add_files` implies appending, while `files` often implies setting/replacing in other contexts, but here both take an iterator. It is unclear if `files` replaces existing files or adds to them. Similarly, `add_file` vs `files` (singular vs plural iterator) is inconsistent with the embed pattern. · ×1

Ambiguity between `add_files` and `files`. `add_files` implies appending, while `files` often implies setting/replacing in other contexts, but here both take an iterator. It is unclear if `files` replaces existing files or adds to them. Similarly, `add_file` vs `files` (singular vs plural iterator) is inconsistent with the embed pattern. — Clarify intent: use `set_files` for replacement and `add_files` for appending. Ensure singular methods match the singular nature of the input. (signatures: CreateMessage.add_file(file: CreateAttachment): Self | CreateMessage.add_files(files: impl IntoIterator<Item = CreateAttachment>): Self | CreateMessage.files(files: impl IntoIterator<Item = CreateAttachment>): Self)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Same pattern inconsistency as embeds/files. `sticker_ids` and `add_sticker_ids` have confusingly similar names with potentially overlapping or unclear replacement vs append semantics. `sticker_id` (singular) vs `sticker_ids` (plural iterator) is inconsistent with `add_sticker_id` (singular) vs `add_sticker_ids` (plural iterator). · ×1

Same pattern inconsistency as embeds/files. `sticker_ids` and `add_sticker_ids` have confusingly similar names with potentially overlapping or unclear replacement vs append semantics. `sticker_id` (singular) vs `sticker_ids` (plural iterator) is inconsistent with `add_sticker_id` (singular) vs `add_sticker_ids` (plural iterator). — Standardize on `set_stickers` (replace) and `add_sticker` (append single) or `add_stickers` (append multiple). Remove redundant singular/plural pairs if they don't have distinct behaviors. (signatures: CreateMessage.add_sticker_id(sticker_id: impl Into<StickerId>): Self | CreateMessage.add_sticker_ids(sticker_ids: impl IntoIterator<Item = T>): Self | CreateMessage.sticker_id(sticker_id: impl Into<StickerId>): Self | CreateMessage.sticker_ids(sticker_ids: impl IntoIterator<Item = T>): Self)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · While not a direct duplicate, the naming `keep_existing_attachment` is verbose and inconsistent with typical builder patterns which might use `retain` or `exclude`. More importantly, `EditInteractionResponse` has `clear_attachments` and `keep_existing_attachment`, while `EditMessage` has `remove_all_attachments` and `remove_existing_attachment`. The verbs `keep` vs `remove` are opposites, but the API surface for managing attachments differs significantly between these two similar builders. · ×1

While not a direct duplicate, the naming `keep_existing_attachment` is verbose and inconsistent with typical builder patterns which might use `retain` or `exclude`. More importantly, `EditInteractionResponse` has `clear_attachments` and `keep_existing_attachment`, while `EditMessage` has `remove_all_attachments` and `remove_existing_attachment`. The verbs `keep` vs `remove` are opposites, but the API surface for managing attachments differs significantly between these two similar builders. — Unify attachment management API across message-like builders. Use `retain_ids` and `remove_ids` or `clear` and `add` consistently. (signatures: EditInteractionResponse.keep_existing_attachment(id: AttachmentId): Self | EditMessage.keep_existing_attachment(id: AttachmentId): Self)

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling clique · ×1

Change coupling clique: create_interaction_response.rs, create_interaction_response_followup.rs, edit_interaction_response.rs src/builder/create_interaction_response.rs — 3 files — `src/builder/create_interaction_response.rs`, `src/builder/create_interaction_response_followup.rs`, `src/builder/edit_interaction_response.rs` — all change together with no explicit dependency: a fully-connected co-change clique, not 3 separate couplings. They share one concern (thin parallel siblings over a common abstraction), so extract the shared part into ONE unit and the whole clique's coupling clears at once — you do not need to break each pair individually.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change-coupling hub · ×1

Change-coupling hub: create_embed.rs → create_invite.rs, edit_guild.rs, edit_profile.rs src/builder/create_embed.rs — `src/builder/create_embed.rs` changes together with 3 other files — `src/builder/create_invite.rs`, `src/builder/edit_guild.rs`, `src/builder/edit_profile.rs` — none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 3 separate couplings, not 3 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 3.

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) REDACTED:2181 — REDACTED:2181-2210 | REDACTED:3808-3843 | REDACTED:3921-3944 | REDACTED:4047-4070 | REDACTED:4845-4871 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) src/framework/standard/structures/buckets.rs:196 — src/framework/standard/structures/buckets.rs:196-217 | src/framework/standard/structures/buckets.rs:241-262 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) REDACTED:2113 — REDACTED:2113-2128 | REDACTED:4751-4767 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/model/guild/mod.rs:1126 — src/model/guild/mod.rs:1126-1141 | src/model/guild/partial_guild.rs:789-804 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/gateway/bridge/shard_manager.rs:305 — src/gateway/bridge/shard_manager.rs:305-319 | src/gateway/bridge/shard_queuer.rs:210-224 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 5) REDACTED:2198 — REDACTED:2198-2210 | REDACTED:3831-3843 | REDACTED:3932-3944 | REDACTED:4058-4070 | REDACTED:4859-4871 — all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 5) REDACTED:555 — REDACTED:555-565 | REDACTED:751-761 | REDACTED:1681-1691 | REDACTED:1969-1979 | REDACTED:2689-2699 — all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) command_attr/src/lib.rs:107 — command_attr/src/lib.rs:107-116 | command_attr/src/lib.rs:318-327 | command_attr/src/lib.rs:625-634 | command_attr/src/lib.rs:754-763 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) src/builder/create_interaction_response_followup.rs:51 — src/builder/create_interaction_response_followup.rs:51-59 | src/builder/create_message.rs:90-98 | src/builder/execute_webhook.rs:97-105 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) command_attr/src/lib.rs:226 — command_attr/src/lib.rs:226-234 | command_attr/src/lib.rs:521-529 | command_attr/src/lib.rs:807-815 | command_attr/src/lib.rs:934-941 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/builder/edit_message.rs:266 — src/builder/edit_message.rs:266-271 | src/builder/edit_webhook_message.rs:197-202 — before extracting anything, compare `src/builder/edit_message.rs` and `src/builder/edit_webhook_message.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/model/application/command_interaction.rs:232 — src/model/application/command_interaction.rs:232-237 | src/model/application/component_interaction.rs:210-215 | src/model/application/modal_interaction.rs:189-194 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.

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

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/utils/mod.rs:182 — src/utils/mod.rs:182-192 | src/utils/mod.rs:226-236 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) REDACTED:2846 — REDACTED:2846-2854 | REDACTED:3071-3079 | REDACTED:3099-3107 | REDACTED:3500-3508 — all 4 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.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: serenity-voice-model — serenity-voice-model: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

Minor — 9 finding(s)

D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×2

Documentation: no project overview README.md — The opening paragraph describes Serenity as a Discord Rust library and links to examples/poise/songbird docs, but it does not state what the project is for or its main features. Add one sentence stating the repository's purpose (e.g. 'Serenity provides a complete Discord API wrapper for Rust') so readers can find it without scanning through the doc.
Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md — The README does not state how to install Serenity or its dependencies. Add installation steps (cargo add, Cargo.toml) and any prerequisites such as Rust and Tokio.

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

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 1 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/builder/create_poll.rs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 3 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 3.3/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (55269 LoC, 598 public types across 19 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.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1

Further orphaned files (smaller) — 55 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than raised one row each — most significant first: src/framework/standard/structures/buckets.rs, src/model/application/command.rs, voice-model/src/event/tests.rs, src/model/guild/audit_log/change.rs, src/http/ratelimiting.rs, src/collector.rs, src/gateway/bridge/shard_manager.rs, voice-model/src/event/mod.rs (and 47 more) (56 orphaned of 148 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 148 of the 182 production source files in this repository met that bar). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.

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

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

M2 · Architecture documentation · No architecture diagram/doc · ×1

No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

P10 · Library API & versioning · Large public API surface · ×1

Large public API surface — 558/639 types (87%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-c01cf7db42a44f228ce17a57d6467603/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	26	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-c01cf7db42a44f228ce17a57d6467603/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	5	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	33	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	0	—
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	0	—

Run 01a0efb4-4b4e-768a-8d8b-7a222625fe86 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Serenity-Rs/serenity

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 90% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 84% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

At a glance — Maturity · 57% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 49% · Adequate · gated by D13 ·

At a glance — Security · 95% · Exemplary ·

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

At a glance — Performance · 91% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts