slaveOftime/Fun.Blazor

Executive summary

slaveOftime/Fun.Blazor scores 38 out of 100, but it is rated At risk while a critical security finding is open; the score itself is unchanged.

The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Security and Compliance, which scores 28 and is rated Weak. Its Access Controls dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Security and Compliance can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler and to pin third-party scripts and verify them: name an exact version in the URL and add an `integrity="sha384-…"` hash alongside `crossorigin="anonymous"` (both are required — an integrity hash on a cross-origin script without `crossorigin` is not evaluated, it blocks the script), and if Security and Compliance rose to 70, the score would rise from 38 to about 47.

20 findings are critical: 12 in Static Analysis (SAST), four in Dependency Vulnerabilities, two in Page structure, one in Change Coupling and one in Text alternatives.

Watchdog couldn't measure 5 dimensions in this code, among them Code Duplication, Incompleteness & stubs and Keyboard semantics, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 43,084 lines, which would take an estimated 0.2 person-years, around €35,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 71 Adequate, capped by Nullable reference types Architecture 92 Adequate, capped by Project Cohesion Maturity 56 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 52 Adequate, capped by Security & performance tooling Security and Compliance 28 Weak, capped by Access Controls and Web-Security Posture Accessibility 34 Weak, capped by Text alternatives and Page structure Performance 60 Adequate

A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.

Security and Compliance 28 · counts for 46%Accessibility 34 · counts for 25%Production Readiness 52 · counts for 14%Maturity 56 · counts for 8%Performance 60 · counts for 4%Code Health 71 · counts for 2%Architecture 92 · counts for 1%

If Security and Compliance rose from 28 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 38 to about 47.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Supporting code 1%Tests 99%

New since the last survey: 10 findings

These 10 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026.

Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/css/github-markdown-dark.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/css/github-markdown-light.css
Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/WatcherServer.fs
Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/WatcherServer.fs

Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.

Fixed since the last survey: 1 finding

This critical or serious finding was in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026, and is gone from this one.

Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED

Rebuild cost: about €35,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€12,000 to €58,000, for 192 to 610 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	Low, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.7 at a score of 38. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Medium: 43,084 lines of product code

How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty.

Top priorities

The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.

Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.

Raises the score by about 8 points · Medium effort · Access Controls

Pin third-party scripts and verify them: name an exact version in the URL and add an `integrity="sha384-…"` hash alongside `crossorigin="anonymous"` (both are required — an integrity hash on a cross-origin script without `crossorigin` is not evaluated, it blocks the script).

Where the vendor ships a continuously-updated loader and publishes no stable hash (tag managers, analytics, chat widgets), Subresource Integrity is not available: constrain it instead with a `Content-Security-Policy` that names the exact origins allowed to execute, and drop the script from the pages that do not need it. Where the page is shipped inside a package that others host, prefer vendoring the asset and serving it from the app’s own origin, so no consumer inherits a third-party dependency they did not choose.

Raises the score by about 7 points · Medium effort · Web-Security Posture

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.

Raises the score by about 2 points · Low effort · Static Analysis (SAST)

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €35,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Security and Compliance, at 28 (Weak). Security and Compliance is about how well the product is protected, and how it handles personal data. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Security and Compliance also moves the score most.

Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Security and Compliance grade · how much each lens counts

What to do: Start with the Security and Compliance actions in Top priorities.

If you do one thing first · First action

Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 8 points for medium effort. The next survey will show the change in the score.

Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

What hard-to-read code costs each year · Cost

Four dimensions measure how easy the code is to work in: two measure how tangled its logic is, one how much of it is copied, and one how well each part sticks to a single job. In this codebase they average 7.1 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and Watchdog estimates the extra work at 2% to 5% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 5,457 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 22,131 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 1.2 to 7.4 engineer-days a year, and it grows as more code changes.

How this is estimated: The number of changed lines is measured from the history of the code. The rest rests on two assumptions of Watchdog's own: code scoring 8 out of 10 or more adds no extra work, and each point below 8 adds 2.5% to 5.6% to every change; and an engineer changes 150 to 400 lines in a day. The result is a range for planning, not a measurement.

Based on: Cyclomatic Complexity · Cognitive Complexity · Cohesion (LCOM4) · the code's change history

What to do: Start with the files listed under Churn × Complexity Hotspots, which change often and are hard to read, because that is where the extra work is paid most often.

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Each box is a bounded context (its layer projects grouped, or a project count when large); arrows show dependencies between contexts. A shared kernel is where many arrows converge.

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.

245 modules, with 160 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 5 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 205 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	3 Fun.Blazor.Internal	4 Fun.Blazor	5 AntDesign.DslInternals.Filters	6 AntDesign.DslInternals.Internal	7 AntDesign.DslInternals.Internal.ModalDialog	8 AntDesign.DslInternals.Select	9 AntDesign.DslInternals.statistic	10 ApexCharts.DslInternals	11 ApexCharts.DslInternals.Internal	12 Blazor.Diagrams.DslInternals	13 Blazor.Diagrams.DslInternals.Controls	17 Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.DslInternals	18 MudBlazor.DslInternals	19 Radzen.Blazor.DslInternals	20 Radzen.Blazor.DslInternals.Blazor.Spreadsheet	21 AntDesign.DslInternals	33 Radzen.Blazor.DslInternals.Blazor	36 AntDesign.DslInternals.Core.Component.ResizeObserver	37 AntDesign.DslInternals.Select.Internal
1 FSharp.Compiler.PortaCode.CodeModel
2 Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm
3 Fun.Blazor.Internal		3
4 Fun.Blazor	2
5 AntDesign.DslInternals.Filters		1
6 AntDesign.DslInternals.Internal		21														18
7 AntDesign.DslInternals.Internal.ModalDialog		1
8 AntDesign.DslInternals.Select		2
9 AntDesign.DslInternals.statistic		1
10 ApexCharts.DslInternals		13
11 ApexCharts.DslInternals.Internal		2
12 Blazor.Diagrams.DslInternals		15
13 Blazor.Diagrams.DslInternals.Controls		10
14 Blazor.Diagrams.DslInternals.Renderers		12
15 Blazor.Diagrams.DslInternals.Widgets		6
16 Fun.Htmx		3
17 Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.DslInternals		2
18 MudBlazor.DslInternals		178
19 Radzen.Blazor.DslInternals		11
20 Radzen.Blazor.DslInternals.Blazor.Spreadsheet		66
21 AntDesign.DslInternals		219		5
22 AntDesign.Filters.DslCE			1
23 AntDesign.Internal.DslCE				21
24 AntDesign.Internal.ModalDialog.DslCE					1
25 AntDesign.Select.DslCE						1
26 AntDesign.statistic.DslCE							1
27 ApexCharts.DslCE								10
28 ApexCharts.Internal.DslCE									1
29 Blazor.Diagrams.Controls.DslCE											5
30 Blazor.Diagrams.DslCE										7
31 Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.DslInternals.Web		3										1
32 MudBlazor.DslInternals.Charts		8											7
33 Radzen.Blazor.DslInternals.Blazor		384												127
34 Radzen.Blazor.DslInternals.Blazor.Spreadsheet.Tools		3													2
35 AntDesign.DslCE																192
36 AntDesign.DslInternals.Core.Component.ResizeObserver		1														1
37 AntDesign.DslInternals.Select.Internal		3														2
38 Radzen.Blazor.DslInternals.Blazor.Rendering		82												2			4
39 AntDesign.Core.Component.ResizeObserver.DslCE																		1
40 AntDesign.Select.Internal.DslCE																			3

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 71% · Adequate · gated by X5 ·

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 7.0 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 8.7 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 10.0 D39 · .NET / C# IL Efficiency 10.0 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X32 · Repo Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0

The Bad

D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 5.5

The Ugly

The Bad

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 6.0

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
A05:2025 — Injection	12	High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	5	High / Critical

Roadmap

First, enforce strict access controls by applying default-deny authorization to all endpoints. Second, harden the web security posture by pinning third-party scripts with integrity hashes and restricting unpinable vendors via Content Security Policy. Third, improve accessibility by adding text alternatives for media and ensuring proper page structure with semantic landmarks. Finally, resolve the identified static analysis finding regarding the hardcoded secret in the deployment workflow.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.	+8.3 pts	Medium	Access Controls
Pin third-party scripts and verify them: name an exact version in the URL and add an `integrity="sha384-…"` hash alongside `crossorigin="anonymous"` (both are required — an integrity hash on a cross-origin script without `crossorigin` is not evaluated, it blocks the script). Where the vendor ships a continuously-updated loader and publishes no stable hash (tag managers, analytics, chat widgets), Subresource Integrity is not available: constrain it instead with a `Content-Security-Policy` that names the exact origins allowed to execute, and drop the script from the pages that do not need it. Where the page is shipped inside a package that others host, prefer vendoring the asset and serving it from the app’s own origin, so no consumer inherits a third-party dependency they did not choose.	+7.5 pts	Medium	Web-Security Posture
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.	+2.3 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED.	+2.3 pts	Low	Dependency Vulnerabilities
Resolve the 3 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED.	+2.3 pts	Low	Dependency Vulnerabilities
Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.	+4.4 pts	Medium	Text alternatives
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.	+3.3 pts	Medium	Page structure
Resolve the 2 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with REDACTED, REDACTED.	+1.3 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 40 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 12% slop · 58% mixed · 30% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	2.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.7	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.7	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
Fun.Blazor/DslComponentBuilder.fs	6.3	Mixed	God Classes: TooManyMethods: ComponentWithDomAndChildAttrBuilder`1
Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs	6.5	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: EvalContext.EmitShellTypes (cyclomatic 83)
Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Radzen/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs	7.0	Mixed	God Classes: FileTooLong: Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs
Bindings/Fun.Blazor.AntDesign/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/AntDesign.fs	7.0	Mixed	God Classes: FileTooLong: Fun.Blazor.Bindings/AntDesign.fs
Bindings/Fun.Blazor.MudBlazor/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/MudBlazor.fs	7.0	Mixed	God Classes: FileTooLong: Fun.Blazor.Bindings/MudBlazor.fs
Fun.Blazor/DslElementBuilder.fs	7.0	Mixed	God Classes: TooManyMethods: EltWithChildBuilder
Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Microsoft.FluentUI/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Microsoft.FluentUI.AspNetCore.Components.fs	7.0	Mixed	God Classes: FileTooLong: Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Microsoft.FluentUI.AspNetCore.Components.fs
Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/Internals.fs	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: Internals.buildAttrs (cyclomatic 21)
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
Fun.Blazor.Generator/CEGenerator.fs	7.4	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: CEGenerator.getMetaInfo (cyclomatic 34)
Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/Processor.fs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: Processor.process' (cyclomatic 32)
Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/LiveCheckEvaluation.fs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: LiveCheckEvaluation.EvaluateDecls (cyclomatic 31)

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 — 20

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 — 142

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 — 60

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

Could not be resolved — 6

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. 67 of 72 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 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 — 72 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D5D6D11D12D13D14D15D17D19D20D21D22D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D39D44AC1AC2AC3AC6AC7AX10AX2AX3AX5AX8C2ED5GD1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6PF3S1X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5

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, 170 of 222 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 01a16b5f-c936-766d-9c3f-5d7299afc747.

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.

D4 Code Duplication — 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. Code Duplication couldn't be assessed within its 6-minute budget on a solution this large — not included in this run.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (4 contributor(s) across 1018 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 98% of the history; the other 3 hold 0.7% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The C# workspace loaded this repository's projects but reported a load failure, and the dead-code reference search is unreliable over a graph that did not load cleanly, so it was skipped. The other debt markers on this row were read; dead symbols were not, and their absence from the score is not a finding that the code has none. First load diagnostic: Failure: Cannot open project 'REDACTED' because the file extension '.fsproj' is not associated with a language.
D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 0 deducted marker(s) and the 0.0/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .fs (43,067 lines, 100% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
D28 Secrets (history) — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. D28's config-credential rule (WD-SECRET-0002) parses each committed `.json` config as a document and reads credential-named values; `Fun.Blazor.Docs.Server/appsettings.json` did not parse (JSON5, a template, several concatenated documents), so a credential bound there is UNMEASURED by that rule. gitleaks still scanned the same files as text.
AC1 Text alternatives — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository renders user interface from a TEMPLATE LANGUAGE or a host-language HTML BUILDER — 13 Fun.Blazor (F#) template file(s) carrying 33 markup element(s) (e.g. Fun.Blazor.Tests/Performances.fs, Fun.Blazor.Tests/Rendering/StyleTests.fs, Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/SSRTemplate.fs) — and the accessibility cards on this run were measured over the 13 parsed markup document(s) ONLY. The markup model reads .html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx, html`…` templates and DOM-assigned HTML strings in .ts/.js, the .erb/.ejs/.eex/.heex/.leex/.twig/.jinja/.j2/.liquid/.njk/.hbs/.mustache/.blade.php/.gohtml template languages, .astro/.templ/.pug/.jade/.haml/.slim, and the kotlinx.html/Compose HTML/kotlin-react, Giraffe/Falco/Fable.React/Feliz/Bolero and Jaspr builder DSLs; 13 of the file(s) above import an HTML builder DSL whose element calls it did not project — a builder it has no reader for, or calls in a shape its reader does not know — so those views were not merely unparsed but unenumerated: not one of their elements entered the population any card scored. Their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's frontend coverage — not a finding that they carry text alternatives, labels, keyboard semantics or correct ARIA.
AC2 Forms & labels — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository renders user interface from a TEMPLATE LANGUAGE or a host-language HTML BUILDER — 13 Fun.Blazor (F#) template file(s) carrying 33 markup element(s) (e.g. Fun.Blazor.Tests/Performances.fs, Fun.Blazor.Tests/Rendering/StyleTests.fs, Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/SSRTemplate.fs) — and the accessibility cards on this run were measured over the 13 parsed markup document(s) ONLY. The markup model reads .html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx, html`…` templates and DOM-assigned HTML strings in .ts/.js, the .erb/.ejs/.eex/.heex/.leex/.twig/.jinja/.j2/.liquid/.njk/.hbs/.mustache/.blade.php/.gohtml template languages, .astro/.templ/.pug/.jade/.haml/.slim, and the kotlinx.html/Compose HTML/kotlin-react, Giraffe/Falco/Fable.React/Feliz/Bolero and Jaspr builder DSLs; 13 of the file(s) above import an HTML builder DSL whose element calls it did not project — a builder it has no reader for, or calls in a shape its reader does not know — so those views were not merely unparsed but unenumerated: not one of their elements entered the population any card scored. Their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's frontend coverage — not a finding that they carry text alternatives, labels, keyboard semantics or correct ARIA.
AC3 Page structure — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository renders user interface from a TEMPLATE LANGUAGE or a host-language HTML BUILDER — 13 Fun.Blazor (F#) template file(s) carrying 33 markup element(s) (e.g. Fun.Blazor.Tests/Performances.fs, Fun.Blazor.Tests/Rendering/StyleTests.fs, Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/SSRTemplate.fs) — and the accessibility cards on this run were measured over the 13 parsed markup document(s) ONLY. The markup model reads .html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx, html`…` templates and DOM-assigned HTML strings in .ts/.js, the .erb/.ejs/.eex/.heex/.leex/.twig/.jinja/.j2/.liquid/.njk/.hbs/.mustache/.blade.php/.gohtml template languages, .astro/.templ/.pug/.jade/.haml/.slim, and the kotlinx.html/Compose HTML/kotlin-react, Giraffe/Falco/Fable.React/Feliz/Bolero and Jaspr builder DSLs; 13 of the file(s) above import an HTML builder DSL whose element calls it did not project — a builder it has no reader for, or calls in a shape its reader does not know — so those views were not merely unparsed but unenumerated: not one of their elements entered the population any card scored. Their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's frontend coverage — not a finding that they carry text alternatives, labels, keyboard semantics or correct ARIA.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This repository renders user interface from a TEMPLATE LANGUAGE or a host-language HTML BUILDER — 13 Fun.Blazor (F#) template file(s) carrying 33 markup element(s) (e.g. Fun.Blazor.Tests/Performances.fs, Fun.Blazor.Tests/Rendering/StyleTests.fs, Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/SSRTemplate.fs) — and the accessibility cards on this run were measured over the 13 parsed markup document(s) ONLY. The markup model reads .html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx, html`…` templates and DOM-assigned HTML strings in .ts/.js, the .erb/.ejs/.eex/.heex/.leex/.twig/.jinja/.j2/.liquid/.njk/.hbs/.mustache/.blade.php/.gohtml template languages, .astro/.templ/.pug/.jade/.haml/.slim, and the kotlinx.html/Compose HTML/kotlin-react, Giraffe/Falco/Fable.React/Feliz/Bolero and Jaspr builder DSLs; 13 of the file(s) above import an HTML builder DSL whose element calls it did not project — a builder it has no reader for, or calls in a shape its reader does not know — so those views were not merely unparsed but unenumerated: not one of their elements entered the population any card scored. Their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's frontend coverage — not a finding that they carry text alternatives, labels, keyboard semantics or correct ARIA.
AC5 ARIA correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This repository renders user interface from a TEMPLATE LANGUAGE or a host-language HTML BUILDER — 13 Fun.Blazor (F#) template file(s) carrying 33 markup element(s) (e.g. Fun.Blazor.Tests/Performances.fs, Fun.Blazor.Tests/Rendering/StyleTests.fs, Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/SSRTemplate.fs) — and the accessibility cards on this run were measured over the 13 parsed markup document(s) ONLY. The markup model reads .html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx, html`…` templates and DOM-assigned HTML strings in .ts/.js, the .erb/.ejs/.eex/.heex/.leex/.twig/.jinja/.j2/.liquid/.njk/.hbs/.mustache/.blade.php/.gohtml template languages, .astro/.templ/.pug/.jade/.haml/.slim, and the kotlinx.html/Compose HTML/kotlin-react, Giraffe/Falco/Fable.React/Feliz/Bolero and Jaspr builder DSLs; 13 of the file(s) above import an HTML builder DSL whose element calls it did not project — a builder it has no reader for, or calls in a shape its reader does not know — so those views were not merely unparsed but unenumerated: not one of their elements entered the population any card scored. Their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's frontend coverage — not a finding that they carry text alternatives, labels, keyboard semantics or correct ARIA.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository renders user interface from a TEMPLATE LANGUAGE or a host-language HTML BUILDER — 13 Fun.Blazor (F#) template file(s) carrying 33 markup element(s) (e.g. Fun.Blazor.Tests/Performances.fs, Fun.Blazor.Tests/Rendering/StyleTests.fs, Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/SSRTemplate.fs) — and the accessibility cards on this run were measured over the 13 parsed markup document(s) ONLY. The markup model reads .html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx, html`…` templates and DOM-assigned HTML strings in .ts/.js, the .erb/.ejs/.eex/.heex/.leex/.twig/.jinja/.j2/.liquid/.njk/.hbs/.mustache/.blade.php/.gohtml template languages, .astro/.templ/.pug/.jade/.haml/.slim, and the kotlinx.html/Compose HTML/kotlin-react, Giraffe/Falco/Fable.React/Feliz/Bolero and Jaspr builder DSLs; 13 of the file(s) above import an HTML builder DSL whose element calls it did not project — a builder it has no reader for, or calls in a shape its reader does not know — so those views were not merely unparsed but unenumerated: not one of their elements entered the population any card scored. Their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's frontend coverage — not a finding that they carry text alternatives, labels, keyboard semantics or correct ARIA.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Subject: 13 markup document(s) — HTML, Razor, JSX, Vue, Svelte or server templates. The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, a Dockerfile, an npm dev script, a web service's own toolchain entry point (cargo, go, dotnet, Python, Spring Boot), or an Android app's own Gradle wrapper (run on an emulator); an Apple or Flutter app needs a host it lacks. None applied, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P1 CI/CD gates — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Which of the two it is cannot be settled from this dimension's evidence; the coverage dimensions report whether a suite exists at all. You can widen what we reach: name the test runner explicitly in the pipeline step (your stack's test command, or a job named for the suite) so the gate is unambiguous to a reader and to this pass.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.

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.
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.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
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.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
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.
AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
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 (5): D19, D21, D22, ED5, 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 Complexity7.0 / 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 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

15 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was EvalContext.EmitShellTypes at 83.

EvalContext.EmitShellTypes (cyclomatic 83)Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:1039

EvalContext.EvalCall (cyclomatic 69)Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:1988

EvalContext.EvalExpr (cyclomatic 68)Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:1694

CEGenerator.getMetaInfo (cyclomatic 34)Fun.Blazor.Generator/CEGenerator.fs:20

Processor.process' (cyclomatic 32)Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/Processor.fs:95

+ 10 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 15 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with EvalContext.EmitShellTypes (cyclomatic 83), EvalContext.EvalCall (cyclomatic 69), EvalContext.EvalExpr (cyclomatic 68). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 15 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 7.0 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity5.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

21 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was EvalContext.EmitShellTypes at 219.

EvalContext.EmitShellTypes (cognitive 219)Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:1039

CEGenerator.getMetaInfo (cognitive 52)Fun.Blazor.Generator/CEGenerator.fs:20

Processor.process' (cognitive 48)Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/Processor.fs:95

LiveCheckEvaluation.EvaluateDecls (cognitive 47)Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/LiveCheckEvaluation.fs:315

EvalContext.TryEvalDecls (cognitive 46)Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:1631

+ 16 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 1 body over 60 down to 60 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with EvalContext.EmitShellTypes (cognitive 219). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 5.5 to about 6.9/10.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes8.7 / 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 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

81 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: RadzenDataGridBuilder`2 · ×73Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Radzen/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs:2695

FileTooLong: Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs · ×6Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Radzen/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs

TooManyFunctions: DslHtmxBuilder · ×2Fun.Htmx/DslHtmxBuilder.fs:2

What to do

Resolve the 73 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with MudBlazor.fs (21), AntDesign.fs (21), Radzen.Blazor.fs (19). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (73 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Radzen.Blazor.fs, AntDesign.fs, MudBlazor.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 TooManyFunctions finding(s) in God Classes — start with DslHtmxBuilder.fs, DslDomAriaAttr.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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?

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

1 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)8.9 / 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 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 of 21 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: EltBuilder (LCOM4 8) · ×2Fun.Blazor/DslElementBuilder.fs:8

What to do

Resolve the 2 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with DslElementBuilder.fs, DslAdaptiview.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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?

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). unit: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene7.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.

Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

36 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 2 deprecated packages.

Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.WebUtilities · ×2REDACTED:54

Outdated: BlazorWasmPreRendering.BuildFun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm.fsproj:50

Outdated: FSharp.Core · ×35

What to do

Resolve the 2 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Outdated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm.fsproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D14 · License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.

Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.

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

0 of 271 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 38 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 212 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.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?

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

0 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 17 LoC in the .NET projects (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped. Measured on the .NET source only: .fs (100% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ 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 Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The repository's README files are well written: each one documents its own directory (Publish Trim, How to Contribute, Advanced features, Tooling, FAQ, Hook, Dependency injection, Working with Blazor, Elmish, Htmx, Custom Elements) and explains what the directory does. The architecture/design docs are also present (22 markdown files). XML-doc coverage for C# components is 0/2, so code-level documentation is thin but not missing from these files. (10 of 25 sampled documents could not be assessed: 1 of 2 evaluation groups failed.)

Documentation: no project overviewDocs/40 Advanced/README.md

XML-doc coverage: CSharpComponentsBenchmark/CSharpComponents/CSharpComponents.csproj

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).

Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d20_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 5 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyStronggated by 2 serious findings◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

2 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 8550 exposed types.

Naming inconsistency for builder execution: One builder uses 'Run' to produce a render fragment, the other uses 'Run' to produce a string. While the return types differ, the parallel naming suggests a unified pattern. However, 'StyleStrBuilder' is an internal implementation detail that breaks the abstraction if users expect 'Run' to always return a UI node. More critically, 'RulesetBuilder' also uses 'Run' but returns a different type. This is a minor internal inconsistency.

Inconsistent return types for DSL entry points: 'stylesheet' returns the final 'NodeRenderFragment' immediately, while 'ruleset' and 'keyframes' return intermediate builder objects ('RulesetBuilder', 'KeyFramesBuilder') that require a subsequent 'Run' call. This forces users to use different patterns for different CSS constructs.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Naming inconsistency for builder execution finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent return types for DSL entry points 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 Cohesion0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 1 projects 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?

D27 · Navigability9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

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

85 % of calls cross a namespace and 3 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)8.4 / 10Adequategated by 12 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

12 finding(s): 0 critical, 12 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 11 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 11 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 (11 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 finding(s): 1 critical, 3 high, 1 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 3 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 64 of the 114 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.6 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: DslElementBuilder.fs↔DslFragmentBuilder.fs 60%; DslComponentBuilder.fs↔DslElementBuilder.fs 50%; FunBlazorComponentWithInlineCE.fs↔DslCore.fs 50%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: FunBlazorComponentWithInlineCE.fs ↔ DslCore.fsBenchmark/Benchmark/BasicBenchmark/FunBlazorComponentWithInlineCE.fs:1

Change coupling clique: DslComponentBuilder.fs, DslElementBuilder.fs, DslFragmentBuilder.fsFun.Blazor/DslComponentBuilder.fs

What to do

Resolve the 1 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with FunBlazorComponentWithInlineCE.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Change coupling clique finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with DslComponentBuilder.fs. — 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?

D39 · IL Efficiency10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Method: IL instruction count per method, read from the BUILT first-party assemblies via Mono.Cecil (the target is compiled on a deep run); scored on the fraction of methods whose emitted IL body exceeds the size threshold. Sees compiler-generated bloat source can't; not-applicable when the target fails to build. Deterministic.

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

34 of 19904 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.

IL efficiency: 34 authored method(s) exceed the IL budgetFun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:444

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d39_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 26 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC1 · Text alternatives1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether non-text content carries a text alternative — img/area/input[type=image] have alt, a meaningful svg has a title or aria-label, video has a captions track, and object/embed/canvas have a name or fallback content. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: every img/area/input[type=image] checked for alt, svg[role=img] for a title/aria-label, video for a captions <track>. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

Coverage: Population: image/media elements — img, area, input[type=image], svg, video, object, embed, canvas — across the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and dynamic-attribute elements are skipped. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is NOT read by any producer, so it contributes no element to this population; where such a frontend is present the card discloses it as an analyzer gap rather than scoring around it.

An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative. — Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/index.html:22

What to do

Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC2 · Forms & labels10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.

Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC3 · Page structure2.2 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.

Coverage: Population: the PARSED MARKUP documents (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx). The page-level checks — lang, title, single main landmark — fire ONCE PER FULL DOCUMENT (an <html> root) and never on a partial or component fragment, so a repo of fragments is assessed only on the per-element checks (heading order, table headers, iframe titles, meta-refresh, zoom). Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en"). — Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/index.html:2
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. — Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/index.html:2
user-scalable=no/0 or a maximum-scale below 2 stops low-vision users zooming to 200%. Remove the zoom restriction from the viewport meta. — Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/index.html:6

What to do

Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC6 · Visual & motion safety5.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.

Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

`#app img` moves (`animation: rotation 3s ease infinite`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/index.html:39
`.markdown-body .pl-mi2` sets color: #c9d1d9 on background-color: #1158c7 — 4.2:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them. — Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/css/github-markdown-dark.css:452
`.markdown-body .anchor:focus` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. (×2) — Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/css/github-markdown-dark.css:529, Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/css/github-markdown-light.css:529

What to do

Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.

Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.

Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.

No accessibility enforcement found — no automated accessibility check runs over the HTML your app renders. Assert the accessibility invariants over that HTML in the test suite you already have (parse the output and assert, or drive a browser), and gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 13 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

What to do

Enforce accessibility in the test suite you already have: assert the accessibility invariants over the HTML your app renders — parse the rendered output in an existing test, or drive a real browser from one — and gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.

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?

AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

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?

AX5 · Architecture & structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.

Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

C2 · Access Controls0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — a framework authorization attribute/decorator or policy, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.

No [Authorize]/policies and no imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) were found — endpoints may be unprotected.

What to do

Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED5 · Idempotency10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

Other · Readiness — Whether retry-prone mutations (command handlers + message/event consumers) are idempotent so an at-least-once redelivery or client retry doesn't double-apply the effect — heuristic at-risk detection confirmed by language model, advisory.

Method: Roslyn heuristic (any mutation, ungated): command handlers and message/event consumers that mutate persistent state without a visible idempotency guard (exists/dedup check, upsert, idempotency-key/inbox, conditional/versioned write, fixed-value set) flagged as at-risk; each at-risk candidate then confirmed or cleared by a language model as genuinely non-idempotent versus naturally-idempotent. Advisory without a model (heuristic-only, degraded), per-candidate judged with one.

Coverage: Population: retry-prone mutations — command handlers (CQRS write side) + message/event consumers (IConsumer/I*EventHandler) — that mutate persistent state; runs on any repo with mutations, not only event-driven ones. The at-risk subset (no obvious guard) is a HEURISTIC candidate set, each then LLM-JUDGED non-idempotent vs safe; a handler outside those conventions, or a guard the LLM can't confirm, is bounded by the sample. Degrades to heuristic-only when no model is configured.

Do you agree with this assessment?

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 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.

What to do

Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure8.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.

What to do

Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy7.4 / 10Strong◐ 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.

Docs/11 DOM/README.md links to `./Advanced-features/Working-With-Blazor`, but `Docs/11 DOM/Advanced-features/Working-With-Blazor` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — Docs/11 DOM/README.md:5
Docs/11 DOM/README.md links to `./Advanced-features/Adaptive/Form`, but `Docs/11 DOM/Advanced-features/Adaptive/Form` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — Docs/11 DOM/README.md:6
Docs/13 Interactive Nodes/README.md links to `./Advanced-features/Working-With-Blazor`, but `Docs/13 Interactive Nodes/Advanced-features/Working-With-Blazor` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — Docs/13 Interactive Nodes/README.md:4
Docs/14 Classes and Functions/README.md links to `./Interactive-Nodes`, but `Docs/14 Classes and Functions/Interactive-Nodes` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — Docs/14 Classes and Functions/README.md:3
Docs/14 Classes and Functions/README.md links to `./Advanced-features/Hook`, but `Docs/14 Classes and Functions/Advanced-features/Hook` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — Docs/14 Classes and Functions/README.md:4
Docs/14 Classes and Functions/README.md links to `./Advanced-features/Dependency-injection-(DI)`, but `Docs/14 Classes and Functions/Advanced-features/Dependency-injection-(DI)` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — Docs/14 Classes and Functions/README.md:5
Docs/16 Routing/README.md links to `./routing/#functional-style`, but `Docs/16 Routing/routing` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — Docs/16 Routing/README.md:3
Docs/95 FAQ/README.cn.md links to `Tooling/Code-Generation`, but `Docs/95 FAQ/Tooling/Code-Generation` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — Docs/95 FAQ/README.cn.md:5
Docs/40 Advanced/44 Working With Blazor/README.md links to `./Tooling/Code-Generation`, but `Docs/40 Advanced/44 Working With Blazor/Tooling/Code-Generation` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — Docs/40 Advanced/44 Working With Blazor/README.md:127
Docs/40 Advanced/82 Custom Elements/README.md names .NET 7, but the projects target .NET 6, 8, 9, 10. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — Docs/40 Advanced/82 Custom Elements/README.md:7

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: Docs/11 DOM/README.md links to `./Advanced-features/Working-With-Blazor`, but `Docs/11 DOM/Advanced-features/Working-With-Blazor` does not exist; Docs/11 DOM/README.md links to `./Advanced-features/Adaptive/Form`, but `Docs/11 DOM/Advanced-features/Adaptive/Form` does not exist; Docs/13 Interactive Nodes/README.md links to `./Advanced-features/Working-With-Blazor`, but `Docs/13 Interactive Nodes/Advanced-features/Working-With-Blazor` does not exist; Docs/14 Classes and Functions/README.md links to `./Interactive-Nodes`, but `Docs/14 Classes and Functions/Interactive-Nodes` does not exist; Docs/14 Classes and Functions/README.md links to `./Advanced-features/Hook`, but `Docs/14 Classes and Functions/Advanced-features/Hook` does not exist.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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.

What to do

Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (`dotnet test` for the toolchain this pipeline already uses) and gate merges on it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability4.9 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: structured-logging frameworks (Serilog, NLog), OpenTelemetry, and health-check endpoint patterns. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Only 2/7 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `Fun.Blazor.Cli`, `Fun.Blazor.Docs.Server`, `Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm`, `Fun.Blazor.Server`, `Fun.Htmx`.

What to do

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting with the ASP.NET Core instrumentation) and a health-check endpoint (ASP.NET Core's MapHealthChecks, or a /health route in your Giraffe/Suave app) for operability.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling1.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 2739 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

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

Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

`ExecuteAsync` is async and calls .Wait() — a blocking call inside async code stalls the thread-pool thread the workflow runs on, and every continuation queued behind it for as long as it runs. (×2) — Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/WatcherServer.fs:42, Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/WatcherServer.fs:92

What to do

F#: inside async { } or task { }, bind with let! / do! (Async.AwaitTask for a Task) instead of Async.RunSynchronously, .Wait() or .GetAwaiter().GetResult(), and use do! Async.Sleep or Task.Delay instead of Thread.Sleep; Async.RunSynchronously belongs at the program's entry point, outside every workflow.

Do you agree with this assessment?

S1 · Web-Security Posture2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order and crypto hygiene (presence, not runtime).

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir source itself (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not) for the arms that hold whether or not the code serves HTTP: a weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source, a TLS client that accepts any certificate, and (JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Elixir) an obsolete TLS version; the server controls are not assessed there, and a Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir repository that serves no HTTP of its own is N/A on them. Deterministic.

`https://unpkg.com/htmx.org@2.0.3` is executed by this page with no Subresource Integrity. Whoever can answer that request — the CDN, anyone who compromises it, anyone on the network path — runs arbitrary script in this page's origin, with its session. 6 such include(s) across the repository's markup. — Fun.Blazor.Docs.Server/Index.fs:61
None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)
No ModelState/[ApiController]/FluentValidation signal — inbound payloads reach handlers unvalidated. (−2.0 on this card.)

What to do

Pin third-party scripts and verify them: name an exact version in the URL and add an `integrity="sha384-…"` hash alongside `crossorigin="anonymous"` (both are required — an integrity hash on a cross-origin script without `crossorigin` is not evaluated, it blocks the script). Where the vendor ships a continuously-updated loader and publishes no stable hash (tag managers, analytics, chat widgets), Subresource Integrity is not available: constrain it instead with a `Content-Security-Policy` that names the exact origins allowed to execute, and drop the script from the pages that do not need it. Where the page is shipped inside a package that others host, prefer vendoring the asset and serving it from the app’s own origin, so no consumer inherits a third-party dependency they did not choose.
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy first, then Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options and a frame policy) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
Enforce HTTPS at the app layer (UseHttpsRedirection / UseHsts) — only skip this if a reverse proxy demonstrably terminates TLS.
Validate inbound models (ModelState/[ApiController]/FluentValidation) to reduce injection and bad-data risk.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.

Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.

Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

0/1 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

What to do

Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.

Do you agree with this assessment?

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 13 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (24%; ≈26% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 42 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

Dimension	WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria	Coverage
AC1 · Text alternatives	1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.5	Partial signal
AC2 · Forms & labels	1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC3 · Page structure	1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC6 · Visual & motion safety	1.4.3, 2.4.7	Partial — literal CSS only
AC7 · A11y enforcement	enforcement — no page criterion	Enforcement posture (process)

Not statically assessed — these 42 Level A/AA criteria need runtime or manual evaluation (WCAG-EM): 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.11, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.1.3.

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	71%	Adequate — gated by X5	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	92%	Adequate — gated by D26	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	56%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	52%	Adequate — gated by P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	28%	Weak — gated by C2, S1	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Accessibility	34%	Weak — gated by AC1, AC3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	60%	Adequate	Strongest area.

Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 5 observation(s) recorded · 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.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Not evidenced — 1 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.

P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 45 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.

AC4 Keyboard semantics — AC4 could not be measured here. This repository renders user interface from a template language — 13 Fun.Blazor (F#) template file(s) carrying 33 markup element(s) (e.g. Fun.Blazor.Tests/Performances.fs, Fun.Blazor.Tests/Rendering/StyleTests.fs, Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/SSRTemplate.fs) — which this analyzer's markup model does not read (it reads .html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx, html`…` templates and DOM-assigned HTML strings in .ts/.js, the .erb/.ejs/.eex/.heex/.leex/.twig/.jinja/.j2/.liquid/.njk/.hbs/.mustache/.blade.php/.gohtml template languages, .astro/.templ/.pug/.jade/.haml/.slim, and the kotlinx.html/Compose HTML/kotlin-react, Giraffe/Falco/Fable.React/Feliz/Bolero and Jaspr builder DSLs), so no interactive element from it could enter the population. The parsed markup carried none either, but that is a gap in our frontend coverage, NOT a statement that this repository has no interactive element.
AC5 ARIA correctness — AC5 could not be measured here. This repository renders user interface from a template language — 13 Fun.Blazor (F#) template file(s) carrying 33 markup element(s) (e.g. Fun.Blazor.Tests/Performances.fs, Fun.Blazor.Tests/Rendering/StyleTests.fs, Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/SSRTemplate.fs) — which this analyzer's markup model does not read (it reads .html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx, html`…` templates and DOM-assigned HTML strings in .ts/.js, the .erb/.ejs/.eex/.heex/.leex/.twig/.jinja/.j2/.liquid/.njk/.hbs/.mustache/.blade.php/.gohtml template languages, .astro/.templ/.pug/.jade/.haml/.slim, and the kotlinx.html/Compose HTML/kotlin-react, Giraffe/Falco/Fable.React/Feliz/Bolero and Jaspr builder DSLs), so no ARIA usage from it could enter the population. The parsed markup carried none either, but that is a gap in our frontend coverage, NOT a statement that this repository has no ARIA usage.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a transaction-script/CRUD architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D10 Test Quality — ~2290 lines of test source are present (.fs) 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.
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution, but this repository's production source is mostly .fs, which the C#/VB workspace does not load — the projects that loaded are an immaterial minority, so solution shape was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — single shared-core project — no cross-context coupling to assess
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D4 Code Duplication — Code Duplication not included (time budget)
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 — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.fs) 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 its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (65 value object(s))
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (2 event handler(s))
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
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'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected — no HttpClient/IHttpClientFactory/AddHttpClient in source, and no Refit/RestSharp/Flurl.Http namespace or package reference
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X2 Cancellation propagation — no async method does work a token could cancel
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 — 20 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

AC1 · Text alternatives · <img> without a text alternative · ×1

<img> without a text alternative Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/index.html:22 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.

AC3 · Page structure · <html> without a lang · ×1

<html> without a lang Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/index.html:2 — The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en").

AC3 · Page structure · Viewport restricts zoom · ×1

Viewport restricts zoom Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/index.html:6 — user-scalable=no/0 or a maximum-scale below 2 stops low-vision users zooming to 200%. Remove the zoom restriction from the viewport meta.

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

REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×1

REDACTED

D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×1

Boundary-crossing change coupling: FunBlazorComponentWithInlineCE.fs ↔ DslCore.fs Benchmark/Benchmark/BasicBenchmark/FunBlazorComponentWithInlineCE.fs:1 — `Benchmark/Benchmark/BasicBenchmark/FunBlazorComponentWithInlineCE.fs` (context Benchmark) and `Fun.Blazor/DslCore.fs` (context Fun.Blazor) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `27938ff7` Update performance (at that commit the file was still `Benchmark/BenchmarkV2/BasicBenchmark/FunBlazorComponentWithInlineCE.fs`); `059d7f24` Add FunComponent (at that commit the file was still `Benchmark/BenchmarkV2/BasicBenchmark/CEComponent.fs`); `20d07135` Improve inline (at that commit the file was still `Benchmark/BenchmarkV2/BasicBenchmark/CEComponent.fs`) — run `git show` on any of them.

Serious — 142 finding(s)

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×73

TooManyMethods: RadzenDataGridBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Radzen/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs:2695 — TooManyMethods — 188 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 158 over it, 6.27× 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: MudDataGridBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.MudBlazor/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/MudBlazor.fs:1561 — TooManyMethods — 167 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 137 over it, 5.57× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: RadzenGanttBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Radzen/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs:4505 — TooManyMethods — 146 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 116 over it, 4.87× 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: TreeBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.AntDesign/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/AntDesign.fs:2811 — TooManyMethods — 102 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 72 over it, 3.40× 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: MudTableBaseBuilder`1 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.MudBlazor/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/MudBlazor.fs:152 — TooManyMethods — 102 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 72 over it, 3.40× 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: RadzenDatePickerBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Radzen/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs:4094 — TooManyMethods — 90 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 60 over it, 3.00× 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: RadzenDropDownDataGridBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Radzen/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs:1542 — TooManyMethods — 89 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 59 over it, 2.97× 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: RadzenDataGridColumnBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Radzen/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs:9465 — TooManyMethods — 89 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 59 over it, 2.97× 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: TableBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.AntDesign/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/AntDesign.fs:2606 — TooManyMethods — 88 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 58 over it, 2.93× 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: RadzenPickListBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Radzen/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs:5359 — TooManyMethods — 88 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 58 over it, 2.93× 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: RadzenPivotDataGridBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Radzen/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs:3199 — TooManyMethods — 86 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 56 over it, 2.87× 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: MudAutocompleteBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.MudBlazor/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/MudBlazor.fs:529 — TooManyMethods — 81 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 51 over it, 2.70× 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.
TooManyMethods: ModalBuilder`1 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.AntDesign/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/AntDesign.fs:2086 — TooManyMethods — 75 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 45 over it, 2.50× 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: ColumnBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.MudBlazor/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/MudBlazor.fs:1392 — TooManyMethods — 71 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 41 over it, 2.37× 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: SelectBaseBuilder`3 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.AntDesign/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/AntDesign.fs:1357 — TooManyMethods — 67 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 37 over it, 2.23× 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: FluentDataGridBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Microsoft.FluentUI/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Microsoft.FluentUI.AspNetCore.Components.fs:1187 — TooManyMethods — 66 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 36 over it, 2.20× 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: FluentDesignSystemProviderBuilder`1 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Microsoft.FluentUI/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Microsoft.FluentUI.AspNetCore.Components.fs:1445 — TooManyMethods — 63 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 33 over it, 2.10× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: PageHeaderBuilder`1 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.AntDesign/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/AntDesign.fs:2184 — TooManyMethods — 62 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 32 over it, 2.07× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: RadzenChatBuilder`1 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Radzen/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs:3766 — TooManyMethods — 62 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 32 over it, 2.07× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: DiffEditorBuilder`1 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.BlazorMonaco/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/BlazorMonaco.fs:79 — TooManyMethods — 61 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 31 over it, 2.03× 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: InputBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.AntDesign/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/AntDesign.fs:1230 — TooManyMethods — 60 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 30 over it, 2.00× 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: DatePickerBaseBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.AntDesign/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/AntDesign.fs:1108 — TooManyMethods — 57 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 27 over it, 1.90× 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: RadzenTimeSpanPickerBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Radzen/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs:6731 — TooManyMethods — 56 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 26 over it, 1.87× 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: RadzenSpreadsheetBuilder`1 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Radzen/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs:6144 — TooManyMethods — 55 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 25 over it, 1.83× 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: MudBaseInputBuilder`2 Bindings/Fun.Blazor.MudBlazor/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/MudBlazor.fs:466 — TooManyMethods — 54 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 24 over it, 1.80× 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.
+ 48 more in this group — see findings.md.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×6

FileTooLong: Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Radzen/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Radzen.Blazor.fs — FileTooLong — 6385 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 5885 over it, 12.77× 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: Fun.Blazor.Bindings/AntDesign.fs Bindings/Fun.Blazor.AntDesign/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/AntDesign.fs — FileTooLong — 3737 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 3237 over it, 7.47× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Fun.Blazor.Bindings/MudBlazor.fs Bindings/Fun.Blazor.MudBlazor/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/MudBlazor.fs — FileTooLong — 3627 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 3127 over it, 7.25× 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: Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Microsoft.FluentUI.AspNetCore.Components.fs Bindings/Fun.Blazor.Microsoft.FluentUI/Fun.Blazor.Bindings/Microsoft.FluentUI.AspNetCore.Components.fs — FileTooLong — 2868 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 2368 over it, 5.74× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs — FileTooLong — 1932 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 53 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1432 over it, 3.86× 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: Fun.Blazor/DslDomEventAttr.fs Fun.Blazor/DslDomEventAttr.fs — FileTooLong — 1303 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 308 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 803 over it, 2.61× 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.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

AC6 · Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a · ×2

Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/css/github-markdown-dark.css:529 — `.markdown-body .anchor:focus` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/css/github-markdown-light.css:529 — `.markdown-body .anchor:focus` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×2

Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.WebUtilities REDACTED:54 — Microsoft.AspNetCore.WebUtilities 2.2.0 — Other,Legacy
Deprecated: Dotnet.ProjInfo REDACTED:36 — Dotnet.ProjInfo 0.44.0 — Legacy — the publisher's replacement is `Ionide.ProjInfo`; migrate the reference to it.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyFunctions · ×2

TooManyFunctions: DslHtmxBuilder Fun.Htmx/DslHtmxBuilder.fs:2 — TooManyFunctions — 58 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 28 over it, 1.93× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: aria Fun.Blazor/DslDomAriaAttr.fs:7 — TooManyFunctions — 49 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 19 over it, 1.63× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×2

Low cohesion: EltBuilder (LCOM4 8) Fun.Blazor/DslElementBuilder.fs:8 — EltBuilder'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: AdaptiviewBuilder (LCOM4 5) Fun.Blazor/DslAdaptiview.fs:15 — AdaptiviewBuilder'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.

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking · ×2

Sync-over-async blocking Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/WatcherServer.fs:42 — `ExecuteAsync` is async and calls .Wait() — a blocking call inside async code stalls the thread-pool thread the workflow runs on, and every continuation queued behind it for as long as it runs.
Sync-over-async blocking Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/WatcherServer.fs:92 — `ExecuteAsync` is async and calls .Wait() — a blocking call inside async code stalls the thread-pool thread the workflow runs on, and every continuation queued behind it for as long as it runs.

AC3 · Page structure · Page without a main landmark · ×1

Page without a main landmark Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/index.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.

AC6 · Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard · ×1

Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/index.html:39 — `#app img` moves (`animation: rotation 3s ease infinite`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.

AC6 · Visual & motion safety · Low contrast colour pair in CSS (4.2 · ×1

Low contrast colour pair in CSS (4.2:1) Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/wwwroot/css/github-markdown-dark.css:452 — `.markdown-body .pl-mi2` sets color: #c9d1d9 on background-color: #1158c7 — 4.2:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them.

AC7 · A11y enforcement · Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1

Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no automated accessibility check runs over the HTML your app renders. Assert the accessibility invariants over that HTML in the test suite you already have (parse the output and assert, or drive a browser), and gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 13 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

C2 · Access Controls · No authorization · ×1

No authorization — No [Authorize]/policies and no imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) were found — endpoints may be unprotected.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EvalContext.EmitShellTypes (cyclomatic 83) · ×1

EvalContext.EmitShellTypes (cyclomatic 83) Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:1039 — EvalContext.EmitShellTypes has cyclomatic complexity 83 (threshold 15). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs holds 4 of the 15 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 180 of the 270 points over it (67%), 9.5× the next-largest file (Fun.Blazor.Generator/CEGenerator.fs at 19). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EvalContext.EvalCall (cyclomatic 69) · ×1

EvalContext.EvalCall (cyclomatic 69) Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:1988 — EvalContext.EvalCall has cyclomatic complexity 69 (threshold 15). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs holds 4 of the 15 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 180 of the 270 points over it (67%), 9.5× the next-largest file (Fun.Blazor.Generator/CEGenerator.fs at 19). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EvalContext.EvalExpr (cyclomatic 68) · ×1

EvalContext.EvalExpr (cyclomatic 68) Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:1694 — EvalContext.EvalExpr has cyclomatic complexity 68 (threshold 15). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs holds 4 of the 15 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 180 of the 270 points over it (67%), 9.5× the next-largest file (Fun.Blazor.Generator/CEGenerator.fs at 19). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CEGenerator.getMetaInfo (cyclomatic 34) · ×1

CEGenerator.getMetaInfo (cyclomatic 34) Fun.Blazor.Generator/CEGenerator.fs:20 — CEGenerator.getMetaInfo has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Processor.process' (cyclomatic 32) · ×1

Processor.process' (cyclomatic 32) Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/Processor.fs:95 — Processor.process' has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · LiveCheckEvaluation.EvaluateDecls (cyclomatic 31) · ×1

LiveCheckEvaluation.EvaluateDecls (cyclomatic 31) Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/LiveCheckEvaluation.fs:315 — LiveCheckEvaluation.EvaluateDecls has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · FormatExpressions.validateFormat (cyclomatic 25) · ×1

FormatExpressions.validateFormat (cyclomatic 25) Fun.Blazor/Router.Giraffe.FormatExpressions.fs:184 — FormatExpressions.validateFormat has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ProjectCracker.getProjectOptionsFromProjectFile (cyclomatic 23) · ×1

ProjectCracker.getProjectOptionsFromProjectFile (cyclomatic 23) Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/ProjectCracker.fs:182 — ProjectCracker.getProjectOptionsFromProjectFile has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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 · Internals.buildAttrs (cyclomatic 21) · ×1

Internals.buildAttrs (cyclomatic 21) Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/Internals.fs:93 — Internals.buildAttrs 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EvalContext.TryEvalDecls (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

EvalContext.TryEvalDecls (cyclomatic 20) Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:1631 — EvalContext.TryEvalDecls has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs holds 4 of the 15 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 180 of the 270 points over it (67%), 9.5× the next-largest file (Fun.Blazor.Generator/CEGenerator.fs at 19). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · FunBlazorServerExtensions.MakeCreateAttrFn (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

FunBlazorServerExtensions.MakeCreateAttrFn (cyclomatic 20) Fun.Blazor.Server/DIExtensions.fs:179 — FunBlazorServerExtensions.MakeCreateAttrFn has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Utils.getTypeName (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

Utils.getTypeName (cyclomatic 18) Fun.Blazor.Generator/Utils.fs:111 — Utils.getTypeName has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Utils.reload (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

Utils.reload (cyclomatic 18) Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Utils.fs:37 — Utils.reload has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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 · HxTrigger.AddTrigger (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

HxTrigger.AddTrigger (cyclomatic 17) Fun.Htmx/Core.fs:529 — HxTrigger.AddTrigger has cyclomatic complexity 17 (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 · MetaInfo.create (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

MetaInfo.create (cyclomatic 16) Fun.Blazor.Generator/MetaInfo.fs:23 — MetaInfo.create has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EvalContext.EmitShellTypes (cognitive 219) · ×1

EvalContext.EmitShellTypes (cognitive 219) Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:1039 — EvalContext.EmitShellTypes has cognitive complexity 219 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 49 (109 pts), loops 22 (56 pts), match/switch 16 (49 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 127). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs holds 4 of the 21 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 275 of the 559 points over it (49%), 6.4× the next-largest file (Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/Internals.fs at 43). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CEGenerator.getMetaInfo (cognitive 52) · ×1

CEGenerator.getMetaInfo (cognitive 52) Fun.Blazor.Generator/CEGenerator.fs:20 — CEGenerator.getMetaInfo has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 31 (37 pts), boolean chains 10, loops 1 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Processor.process' (cognitive 48) · ×1

Processor.process' (cognitive 48) Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/Processor.fs:95 — Processor.process' has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (13 pts), if/else 6 (12 pts), loops 5 (12 pts), error handling 5 (10 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 24). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LiveCheckEvaluation.EvaluateDecls (cognitive 47) · ×1

LiveCheckEvaluation.EvaluateDecls (cognitive 47) Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/LiveCheckEvaluation.fs:315 — LiveCheckEvaluation.EvaluateDecls has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (17 pts), loops 8 (14 pts), match/switch 6 (12 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EvalContext.TryEvalDecls (cognitive 46) · ×1

EvalContext.TryEvalDecls (cognitive 46) Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:1631 — EvalContext.TryEvalDecls has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (31 pts), if/else 2 (6 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 31). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs holds 4 of the 21 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 275 of the 559 points over it (49%), 6.4× the next-largest file (Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/Internals.fs at 43). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Utils.reload (cognitive 46) · ×1

Utils.reload (cognitive 46) Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Utils.fs:37 — Utils.reload has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (25 pts), error handling 3 (14 pts), if/else 2 (5 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 32). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Internals.buildAttrs (cognitive 45) · ×1

Internals.buildAttrs (cognitive 45) Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/Internals.fs:93 — Internals.buildAttrs has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (33 pts), match/switch 2 (7 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 20). 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 · EvalContext.EvalExpr (cognitive 40) · ×1

EvalContext.EvalExpr (cognitive 40) Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:1694 — EvalContext.EvalExpr has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 12 (31 pts), if/else 4 (7 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 23). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs holds 4 of the 21 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 275 of the 559 points over it (49%), 6.4× the next-largest file (Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/Internals.fs at 43). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FormatExpressions.validateFormat (cognitive 39) · ×1

FormatExpressions.validateFormat (cognitive 39) Fun.Blazor/Router.Giraffe.FormatExpressions.fs:184 — FormatExpressions.validateFormat has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (30 pts), match/switch 5 (7 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DIComponent`1.HandleNotFoundType (cognitive 37) · ×1

DIComponent`1.HandleNotFoundType (cognitive 37) Fun.Blazor/DIComponent.fs:165 — DIComponent`1.HandleNotFoundType has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (37 pts) (nesting depth added 23). 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 · Utils.getTypeName (cognitive 34) · ×1

Utils.getTypeName (cognitive 34) Fun.Blazor.Generator/Utils.fs:111 — Utils.getTypeName has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (24 pts), match/switch 3 (10 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FunBlazorServerExtensions.MakeCreateAttrFn (cognitive 31) · ×1

FunBlazorServerExtensions.MakeCreateAttrFn (cognitive 31) Fun.Blazor.Server/DIExtensions.fs:179 — FunBlazorServerExtensions.MakeCreateAttrFn has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (22 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 3 (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EvalContext.EvalCall (cognitive 30) · ×1

EvalContext.EvalCall (cognitive 30) Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:1988 — EvalContext.EvalCall has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (17 pts), if/else 3 (8 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 19). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs holds 4 of the 21 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 275 of the 559 points over it (49%), 6.4× the next-largest file (Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/Internals.fs at 43). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Internals.parseNodes (cognitive 27) · ×1

Internals.parseNodes (cognitive 27) Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/Internals.fs:238 — Internals.parseNodes has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), loops 3 (10 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 16). 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 · SSRTemplate.html (cognitive 26) · ×1

SSRTemplate.html (cognitive 26) Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/SSRTemplate.fs:18 — SSRTemplate.html has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), loops 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ProjectCracker.getProjectOptionsFromProjectFile (cognitive 20) · ×1

ProjectCracker.getProjectOptionsFromProjectFile (cognitive 20) Fun.Blazor.Cli/Watch/ProjectCracker.fs:182 — ProjectCracker.getProjectOptionsFromProjectFile has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 12 (18 pts), if/else 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Generate.findPackageMetas (cognitive 18) · ×1

Generate.findPackageMetas (cognitive 18) Fun.Blazor.Cli/CodeGen/Generate.fs:45 — Generate.findPackageMetas has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (10 pts), match/switch 5 (7 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CEGenerator.generateCode (cognitive 18) · ×1

CEGenerator.generateCode (cognitive 18) Fun.Blazor.Generator/CEGenerator.fs:213 — CEGenerator.generateCode has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), match/switch 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MetaInfo.create (cognitive 18) · ×1

MetaInfo.create (cognitive 18) Fun.Blazor.Generator/MetaInfo.fs:23 — MetaInfo.create has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (12 pts), match/switch 4, boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HxTrigger.AddTrigger (cognitive 17) · ×1

HxTrigger.AddTrigger (cognitive 17) Fun.Htmx/Core.fs:529 — HxTrigger.AddTrigger has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 12 (14 pts), if/else 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Internals.buildNodes (cognitive 16) · ×1

Internals.buildNodes (cognitive 16) Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate/Internals.fs:33 — Internals.buildNodes has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), loops 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.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Naming inconsistency for builder execution · ×1

Naming inconsistency for builder execution: One builder uses 'Run' to produce a render fragment, the other uses 'Run' to produce a string. While the return types differ, the parallel naming suggests a unified pattern. However, 'StyleStrBuilder' is an internal implementation detail that breaks the abstraction if users expect 'Run' to always return a UI node. More critically, 'RulesetBuilder' also uses 'Run' but returns a different type. This is a minor internal inconsistency. — Rename 'StyleStrBuilder.Run' to 'StyleStrBuilder.BuildString' or 'ToString' to distinguish it from the UI-building 'Run' methods, or ensure the naming convention for builders is strictly 'Build' vs 'Run' across all types. (signatures: Fun.Blazor.Internal.StyleBuilder.Run(combine: CombineKeyValue): AttrRenderFragment | Fun.Blazor.Internal.StyleStrBuilder.Run(combine: CombineKeyValue): String)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent return types for DSL entry points · ×1

Inconsistent return types for DSL entry points: 'stylesheet' returns the final 'NodeRenderFragment' immediately, while 'ruleset' and 'keyframes' return intermediate builder objects ('RulesetBuilder', 'KeyFramesBuilder') that require a subsequent 'Run' call. This forces users to use different patterns for different CSS constructs. — Unify the DSL pattern. Either all entry points should return builders requiring a 'Run' call, or 'stylesheet' should be renamed to 'buildStylesheet' or similar to indicate it's a terminal operation, while 'ruleset' and 'keyframes' remain builders. Ideally, 'stylesheet' should also return a builder for consistency. (signatures: Fun.Blazor.DslStyle.DslStyle.stylesheet(x: String): NodeRenderFragment | Fun.Blazor.DslStyle.DslStyle.ruleset(ruleName: String): RulesetBuilder | Fun.Blazor.DslStyle.DslStyle.keyframes(identifier: String): KeyFramesBuilder)

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×1

REDACTED

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling clique · ×1

Change coupling clique: DslComponentBuilder.fs, DslElementBuilder.fs, DslFragmentBuilder.fs Fun.Blazor/DslComponentBuilder.fs — 3 files — `Fun.Blazor/DslComponentBuilder.fs`, `Fun.Blazor/DslElementBuilder.fs`, `Fun.Blazor/DslFragmentBuilder.fs` — 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.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.

S1 · Web-Security Posture · Third-party script without Subresource Integrity · ×1

Third-party script without Subresource Integrity Fun.Blazor.Docs.Server/Index.fs:61 — `https://unpkg.com/htmx.org@2.0.3` is executed by this page with no Subresource Integrity. Whoever can answer that request — the CDN, anyone who compromises it, anyone on the network path — runs arbitrary script in this page's origin, with its session. 6 such include(s) across the repository's markup.

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

NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.

Minor — 24 finding(s)

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×10

README/code drift Docs/11 DOM/README.md:5 — Docs/11 DOM/README.md links to `./Advanced-features/Working-With-Blazor`, but `Docs/11 DOM/Advanced-features/Working-With-Blazor` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift Docs/11 DOM/README.md:6 — Docs/11 DOM/README.md links to `./Advanced-features/Adaptive/Form`, but `Docs/11 DOM/Advanced-features/Adaptive/Form` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift Docs/13 Interactive Nodes/README.md:4 — Docs/13 Interactive Nodes/README.md links to `./Advanced-features/Working-With-Blazor`, but `Docs/13 Interactive Nodes/Advanced-features/Working-With-Blazor` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift Docs/14 Classes and Functions/README.md:3 — Docs/14 Classes and Functions/README.md links to `./Interactive-Nodes`, but `Docs/14 Classes and Functions/Interactive-Nodes` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift Docs/14 Classes and Functions/README.md:4 — Docs/14 Classes and Functions/README.md links to `./Advanced-features/Hook`, but `Docs/14 Classes and Functions/Advanced-features/Hook` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift Docs/14 Classes and Functions/README.md:5 — Docs/14 Classes and Functions/README.md links to `./Advanced-features/Dependency-injection-(DI)`, but `Docs/14 Classes and Functions/Advanced-features/Dependency-injection-(DI)` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift Docs/16 Routing/README.md:3 — Docs/16 Routing/README.md links to `./routing/#functional-style`, but `Docs/16 Routing/routing` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift Docs/95 FAQ/README.cn.md:5 — Docs/95 FAQ/README.cn.md links to `Tooling/Code-Generation`, but `Docs/95 FAQ/Tooling/Code-Generation` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift Docs/40 Advanced/44 Working With Blazor/README.md:127 — Docs/40 Advanced/44 Working With Blazor/README.md links to `./Tooling/Code-Generation`, but `Docs/40 Advanced/44 Working With Blazor/Tooling/Code-Generation` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift Docs/40 Advanced/82 Custom Elements/README.md:7 — Docs/40 Advanced/82 Custom Elements/README.md names .NET 7, but the projects target .NET 6, 8, 9, 10. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×1

Outdated: BlazorWasmPreRendering.Build Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm/Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm.fsproj:50 — BlazorWasmPreRendering.Build 7.0.0 → 10.0.2 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm).

D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×1

Documentation: no project overview Docs/40 Advanced/README.md — The 'Advanced features' section is a single heading with no description of what the project does or what it covers. Add an overview paragraph explaining that this document covers advanced topics such as hooks, dependency injection, cascading values, and Blazor component working with both C# and F#.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.

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

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 1 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `CSharpComponents` (17 LoC, 2833 public types across 236 namespaces). Review these for cohesion — split a project that spans unrelated responsibilities.

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

REDACTED

D39 · IL Efficiency · IL efficiency · ×1

IL efficiency: 34 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:444 — 34 of 19904 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (> 250 instructions); worst: FSharp.Compiler.PortaCode.Interpreter/EvalContext..ctor @ Fun.Blazor.HotReload/Interpreter.fs:444, 3033 IL instructions; that pulled this dimension to 10.0/10. These bodies are far past the JIT's inline budget, so splitting them does not make them inlinable — what moves the number is emitting less: collapsing LINQ chains and closures on hot paths, and interpolation built eagerly where it is only sometimes used.

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.

M3 · Folder & project structure · No src/ separation · ×1

No src/ separation — Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 2/7 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `Fun.Blazor.Cli`, `Fun.Blazor.Docs.Server`, `Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm`, `Fun.Blazor.Server`, `Fun.Htmx`.

P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 2739 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

S1 · Web-Security Posture · No security response headers detected · ×1

No security response headers detected — None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)

S1 · Web-Security Posture · No app-layer HTTPS enforcement detected · ×1

No app-layer HTTPS enforcement detected — No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)

S1 · Web-Security Posture · No inbound model validation detected · ×1

No inbound model validation detected — No ModelState/[ApiController]/FluentValidation signal — inbound payloads reach handlers unvalidated. (−2.0 on this card.)

X5 · Nullable reference types · Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere · ×1

Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere — 0/1 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

Minor — 36 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×35

Outdated: FSharp.Core — FSharp.Core 10.1.400 → 10.1.402 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Tests).
Outdated: FSharp.Data.Adaptive — FSharp.Data.Adaptive 1.2.15 → 1.2.27 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor).
Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.Web — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.Web 10.0.11 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Microsoft.Web).
Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.WebUtilities — Microsoft.AspNetCore.WebUtilities 9.0.21 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.ObjectPool — Microsoft.Extensions.ObjectPool 8.0.32 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor).
Outdated: CliWrap — CliWrap 3.10.1 → 3.10.5 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Cli).
Outdated: FSharp.Compiler.Service — FSharp.Compiler.Service 43.9.100 → 43.12.402 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Cli).
Outdated: Microsoft.Build.Utilities.Core — Microsoft.Build.Utilities.Core 18.6.3 → 18.11.0 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Cli).
Outdated: Spectre.Console — Spectre.Console 0.55.2 → 0.57.2 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Cli).
Outdated: Spectre.Console.Cli — Spectre.Console.Cli 0.55.0 → 0.57.2 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Cli).
Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.CustomElements — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.CustomElements 8.0.10 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.CustomElements).
Outdated: Elmish — Elmish 4.2.0 → 5.0.2 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Elmish).
Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.SignalR.Client — Microsoft.AspNetCore.SignalR.Client 9.0.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.HotReload).
Outdated: FSharp.Data — FSharp.Data 6.4.0 → 8.2.0 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.HtmlTemplate).
Outdated: FSharp.Control.Reactive — FSharp.Control.Reactive 5.0.5 → 6.1.2 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Reactive).
Outdated: FSharp.SystemTextJson — FSharp.SystemTextJson 1.3.13 → 1.4.36 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Server).
Outdated: bunit — bunit 2.9.0 → 2.12.5 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Tests).
Outdated: FsUnit.xUnit — FsUnit.xUnit 7.1.1 → 8.0.0 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.TestHost — Microsoft.AspNetCore.TestHost 10.0.11 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 18.9.0 → 18.11.0 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.Testing.Extensions.CodeCoverage — Microsoft.Testing.Extensions.CodeCoverage 18.0.6 → 18.12.0 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Tests).
Outdated: Moq — Moq 4.20.72 → 4.21.0 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Tests).
Outdated: xunit.runner.visualstudio — xunit.runner.visualstudio 3.1.5 → 4.0.1 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Tests).
Outdated: xunit.v3 — xunit.v3 3.2.2 → 4.0.2 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Tests).
Outdated: Majorsoft.Blazor.WebAssembly.Logging.Console — Majorsoft.Blazor.WebAssembly.Logging.Console 1.5.0 → 2.3.0 available (referenced by Fun.Blazor.Docs.Wasm).
+ 10 more in this group — see findings.md.

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×1

XML-doc coverage: CSharpComponents Benchmark/CSharpComponents/CSharpComponents.csproj — CSharpComponents: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/2).

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-e93e85366ad64b0f896f74d723a08ab7/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-e93e85366ad64b0f896f74d723a08ab7/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	12	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list Fun.Blazor.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	5	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	none (no readable dependency manifest)	—	none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).	0	—

Run 01a16b5f-c936-766d-9c3f-5d7299afc747 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 71% · Adequate · gated by X5 ·

At a glance — Architecture · 92% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

At a glance — Maturity · 56% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 52% · Adequate · gated by P3 ·

At a glance — Security · 28% · Weak · gated by C2, S1 ·

At a glance — Accessibility · 34% · Weak · gated by AC1, AC3 ·

At a glance — Performance · 60% · Adequate ·

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

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts