Public report — codeapp, published 30 Sep 2026.
Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches,
dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase surveyMeasured under the Code Assurance Index · rubric rubric-2026.09.18 (frozen) · verify this surveyFiledcd_94ec757261194b929229ae3a9482157c
Filed 30 September 2026, 21:21 UTC
Public
Medium · 23,015 LoC · 3 projects · rebuild ~0.2 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (51%)
Findings by grade
42 critical158 serious39 minor37 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
30 September 2026, 21:07 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify,
approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The
standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said
here so the number is checked rather than believed.
Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸
206findings with an exact file:lineof 239 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
53/127dimensions across the health lenses23015 LoC · 3 projects — wide & deep
⚠ A critical security finding caps this grade — resolve it before relying on the score below; see the Security lens.
This system holds a moderate overall standing of 58%, indicating a workable asset carrying real operational risk. While the core logic is sound and the architecture is robust, the system’s readiness for production is fragile. This gap threatens delivery speed and reliability, creating a scenario where routine changes become more expensive and error-prone than necessary. The business value tied up here is significant, yet the cost to rebuild is surprisingly low at roughly €26,000, suggesting that targeted improvements offer high leverage compared to a full rewrite.
The primary risk lies in operational readiness. With a score of 51%, the system lacks the testing depth and observability needed for confident deployment. This weakness means that every update carries a higher probability of regression or outage, directly impacting customer trust and support costs. The code quality signals impose a velocity tax on every change, adding an estimated 2–5% overhead to development time. This friction compounds as the codebase grows, slowly eroding team productivity and increasing the cost of maintaining the system over time.
A secondary concern is the exposure of internal implementation details. By leaving implementation types public, the system forces consumers to depend on details that may change, creating unnecessary coupling. This architectural choice increases the risk of breaking changes and makes refactoring difficult. Addressing this is the highest-leverage action available. It requires minimal effort but pays for itself quickly by reducing the annual drag on the team’s capacity to modify the code. The fix is so efficient that it essentially becomes free after the initial investment.
Despite these risks, the system has genuine strengths. The domain modeling is excellent, and the architecture is highly cohesive, providing a solid foundation for future growth. Accessibility and performance are also strong, ensuring a good user experience. However, the picture is partial; key areas like event-driven patterns and test coverage were not measured, leaving some risks unquantified. To secure the system’s value, focus first on restricting public interfaces and improving operational readiness. These steps will stabilize delivery, reduce long-term costs, and protect the business from avoidable technical debt.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
D22 · Inconsistent naming for creation operations. 'createBranch' uses 'at' for the target commit, while 'createLightweightTag' and 'createAnnotatedTag' use 'oid'. This creates confusion about whether the parameter represents a commit object, an OID, or a generic reference target.
D22 · Redundant specific fetch methods alongside a generic fetch. The specific methods (blob, commit, tag, tree) are thin wrappers around the generic 'object(OID)' method. This duplicates intent and forces the user to know the type beforehand or handle casting, whereas 'object' returns a generic type that requires inspection.
D22 · Inconsistent return types for reference lookups. 'reference(named:)' returns a generic 'ReferenceType', while specific lookups like 'localBranch', 'remoteBranch', and 'tag' return strongly typed 'Branch' or 'TagReference'. This forces the user to use different methods depending on whether they want a specific type or a generic reference, creating a fragmented API for the same underlying operation (lookup by name).
D22 · Inconsistent naming for collection retrieval. 'allRemotes' and 'allTags' use the 'all' prefix, while 'localBranches' and 'remoteBranches' do not. This suggests a lack of a unified pattern for listing entities.
S1 · Third-party script without Subresource Integrity LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbextensions/jupyter-js-widgets/extension.js
AC1 · <img> without a text alternative LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/classic/base.html.j2
AC1 · <img> without a text alternative LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/lab/base.html.j2
AC2 · <select> without a programmatic label LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter-widgets/jupyterlab-manager/static/638.f3e5e34a28f3334d4f08.js
AC2 · Link with no accessible name LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter-widgets/jupyterlab-manager/static/638.f3e5e34a28f3334d4f08.js
AC2 · <input> without a programmatic label LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter-widgets/jupyterlab-manager/static/638.f3e5e34a28f3334d4f08.js
AC2 · <textarea> without a programmatic label LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter-widgets/jupyterlab-manager/static/638.f3e5e34a28f3334d4f08.js
AC2 · <select> without a programmatic label LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbextensions/jupyter-js-widgets/extension.js
AC2 · Link with no accessible name LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbextensions/jupyter-js-widgets/extension.js
AC2 · <input> without a programmatic label LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbextensions/jupyter-js-widgets/extension.js
AC2 · <textarea> without a programmatic label LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbextensions/jupyter-js-widgets/extension.js
AC3 · Page without a main landmark Dependencies/terminal.bundle/index.html
AC3 · Page without a main landmark LanguageResources/ClangLib/wasm.html
AC3 · <html> without a lang LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/classic/index.html.j2
AC3 · Page without a main landmark LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/classic/index.html.j2
AC3 · <html> without a lang LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/lab/index.html.j2
AC3 · Page without a main landmark LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/lab/index.html.j2
AC3 · <html> without a lang LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/reveal/index.html.j2
AC3 · Page without a main landmark LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/reveal/index.html.j2
AC6 · Low contrast colour pair in CSS (2.8:1) LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/lab/static/index.css
A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.
0.8× (at 58% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape
Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)
This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€26,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 51% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.8× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED.
Keep implementation types off the public surface (Swift: leave it `internal` (the default) instead of `public`) so internals can change without breaking consumers.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 51%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Keep implementation types off the public surface (Swift: leave it `internal` (the default) instead of `public`) so internals can change without breaking consumers. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Keep implementation types off the public surface (Swift: leave it `internal` (the default) instead of `public`) so internals can change without breaking consumers.
A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 7.4/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 2–5% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Evidence: D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 7.4/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured
→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.
The top fix pays for itself · Medium · Economics
The top-ranked fix costs roughly 1–3 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 0–0.3 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~888 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 41–811 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 2–5% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.
Evidence: D15 churn: 219 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~888/year · D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 7.4/10 ⇒ a 2–5% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Low effort ⇒ about 1–3 engineer-day(s)
→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 811 months.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
9 modules, 1 dependency. Every dependency points down the layering — no cycles.
Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
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
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components
29
High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures
1
High / Critical
A04:2021 — Insecure Design
1
High / Critical
Roadmap
First, restrict library API visibility to internal to protect consumers from breaking changes during refactoring. Next, address accessibility gaps by adding text alternatives for media, ensuring proper page structure with landmarks and titles, and providing programmatic labels for all form controls. Finally, integrate automated accessibility checks into your CI pipeline to enforce these standards across rendered pages.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED.
Keep implementation types off the public surface (Swift: leave it `internal` (the default) instead of `public`) so internals can change without breaking consumers.
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.
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add an accessibility check that can read your UI — no component framework was detected and your pages are rendered by server-side templates, which neither the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins nor the HTML-template linters can parse; run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, or assert the accessibility invariants over that rendered HTML in the test suite you already have, then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
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 — 42
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 — 158
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 — 39
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 37
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. 49 of 53 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 53 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 206 of 239 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D11 Test Reliability — 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 declares 1 of its own test(s) unreliable. The built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem (.swift), so the suite was not re-run and no reliability score is given — these are the repository's own declarations, not our measurement.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, but the licence verdict published here was taken over its gem dependencies. Nothing was read about its SwiftPM dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (14 contributor(s) across 860 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 96% of the history; the other 13 hold 0.3% 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.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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. `CodeApp/Managers/AppExtensionService.swift`, `CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/WorkSpaceStorage.swift`, `CodeApp/Managers/SearchManager.swift`, `CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift`, `CodeApp/Utilities/shortcutsMapping.swift`, … (+19 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registrations in C# and Spring beans in Java/Kotlin only, and no container it models, or knows cannot hold a captive, was found in this repository's source, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX2 Stateful singletons — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection singletons in C#, Spring/JSR-330/CDI singletons in Java and Kotlin, and module state in Python request handlers only, and this repository's product is written in Swift, which was left unread, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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: 15 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, or an npm dev script. None was found, 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).
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — 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. Those languages colour their functions async, so blocking inside them is the same defect this card counts elsewhere, but their blocking vocabulary is not modelled yet. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the code is free of it.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — 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. X7 measured the part of this repository it reads (C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust and Go), and its Swift source is outside the check's reach, so the card covers only part of the product. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the unread source is free of silent defaults.
Repo exclusion declarations: 10 pattern(s) declared (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code) excluded 0 source file(s) from code-quality scoring. Declarations are the repo's own visible statement that a tree is machine-written or vendored — auditable in any diff, honored by GitHub the same way.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
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.
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.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR): PII/GDPR signals are heuristic pattern matches in code — they flag likely handling concerns, not legal compliance, and cannot trace where data actually flows at runtime.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
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.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
DM4 Rich vs anemic domain model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D22, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
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.
+ 8 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 wasmWebViewDelegate.webView (cyclomatic 88) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with wasm.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 TerminalInstance.userContentController (cyclomatic 44) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with TerminalInstance.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 RunestoneImplementation.detectLangauge (cyclomatic 38) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with RunestoneImplementation.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
+ 16 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 wasmWebViewDelegate.webView (cognitive 299) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with wasm.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 node.swift.npm (cognitive 86) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with node.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 TerminalInstance.userContentController (cognitive 63) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with TerminalInstance.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes6.6 / 10Adequate✓ 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.
Resolve the 10 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with wasm.swift, SettingsView.swift, TerminalInstance.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Resolve the 7 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Repository.swift, MainApp.swift, MonacoImplementation.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Repository.swift, MainApp.swift. — 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.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
36 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 2 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.
+ 20 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with ImageEditorExtension.swift (2), EditorKeyboardToolBar.swift, Repository.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with PanelView.swift, ImageEditorExtension.swift, ActivityBar.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with wasm.swift, SettingsView.swift, SourceControlSection.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
2 production modules (SwiftPM), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 0 module(s) off the main sequence.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Resolve the 7 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with RunestoneImplementation.swift, LocalFileSystemProvider.swift, MainApp.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
21916 test methods: 21911 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 5 e2e. The Python suite contributes 21910 test function(s) across 703 file(s) declaring at least one — every `def test…` in a file pytest or unittest would collect, which is those frameworks' own definition of a case; a parametrize table counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is read from file names and paths only.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality6.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
Test project verifies nothing: SwiftWSTestsSwiftWS/Tests/SwiftWSTests/SwiftWSTests.swift:5
What to do
Resolve the 1 Assertions commented out finding(s) in Test Quality — start with SwiftWSTests.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Test project verifies nothing finding(s) in Test Quality — start with SwiftWSTests.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
13 outdated direct SwiftPM dependencies, 6 pinning defect(s). 20 of 25 direct dependencies had their releases listed (0 naming no readable repository, 5 pinned to a branch or a revision rather than a version). SwiftPM has no package registry: a dependency is a repository URL and its releases are that repository's semver tags, so currency is answered by listing tags rather than by querying an index. Only a newer tag on the SAME MAJOR is reported — a `from:` requirement admits everything below the next major and nothing above it, so a major crossing needs a Package.swift edit rather than an update, and naming the update as its remedy would be wrong. Whether any dependency is DEPRECATED or ABANDONED is not graded and cannot be: a repository publishes no such marker, and there is no registry that could carry one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question.
Floating branch dependency: libgit2-on-ios · ×5
Dependency not covered by the committed resolution: libgit2-on-ios
Outdated: cwlcatchexception · ×11
What to do
Resolve the 5 Floating branch dependency finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Dependency not covered by the committed resolution finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
0 of 90 shipped gem(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from rubygems.org over the 90 gem(s) a consumer installs — this repository's runtime declarations closed transitively over its committed REDACTED. Development-group and `add_development_dependency` gems are excluded: they are not distributed with this repository. 1 of them publish no licence on rubygems.org; that is missing data, not a violation, and none of them is charged. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's gem dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
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.
26 deducted task-comment markers across 23015 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
Resolve the 25 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with MainApp.swift (6), SFTPFileSystemProvider.swift (3), Repository.swift (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (25 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Repository.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
This repository's READMEs are mostly strong: the root README (Code App) gives a clear overview of what the app is and where to find documentation, lists the project's features with an enumerated list and step-by-step building instructions, and links out to code.thebaselab.com. The SwiftGit2/README documents that directory (SwiftGit2), while the SwiftWS/README and fastlane/README are READMEs for their own directories rather than the repository root. There is no architecture or design documentation present in the visible content.
What to do
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10. — This repository's READMEs are mostly strong: the root README (Code App) gives a clear overview of what the app is and where to find documentation, lists the project's features with an enumerated list and step-by-step building instructions, and links out to code.thebaselab.com. The SwiftGit2/README documents that directory (SwiftGit2), while the SwiftWS/README and fastlane/README are READMEs for their own directories rather than the repository root. There is no architecture or design documentation present in the visible content.
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D22 · Internal API ConsistencyWeak◐ 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.
Inconsistent naming for creation operations. 'createBranch' uses 'at' for the target commit, while 'createLightweightTag' and 'createAnnotatedTag' use 'oid'. This creates confusion about whether the parameter represents a commit object, an OID, or a generic reference target.
Redundant specific fetch methods alongside a generic fetch. The specific methods (blob, commit, tag, tree) are thin wrappers around the generic 'object(OID)' method. This duplicates intent and forces the user to know the type beforehand or handle casting, whereas 'object' returns a generic type that requires inspection.
Inconsistent return types for reference lookups. 'reference(named:)' returns a generic 'ReferenceType', while specific lookups like 'localBranch', 'remoteBranch', and 'tag' return strongly typed 'Branch' or 'TagReference'. This forces the user to use different methods depending on whether they want a specific type or a generic reference, creating a fragmented API for the same underlying operation (lookup by name).
Inconsistent naming for collection retrieval. 'allRemotes' and 'allTags' use the 'all' prefix, while 'localBranches' and 'remoteBranches' do not. This suggests a lack of a unified pattern for listing entities.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for creation operations. 'createBranch' uses 'at'… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Redundant specific fetch methods alongside a generic fetch. The specific… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent return types for reference lookups. 'reference(named 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.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
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 REDACTED is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.
Resolve the 15 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (8), REDACTED (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 issue-level).
Resolve the 8 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)7.1 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Likely personal-data (PII / GDPR) handling concerns — logging or storing data without safeguards.
Method: Heuristic PII/GDPR LEAK scan via semgrep across the repo, using Watchdog's own ruleset: personal data crossing a boundary it should not — reaching a log/console sink, a URL or query string, or unprotected browser storage. Matches map to severity and a 0-10 wide normalizer. A clean sweep is unscored rather than an unearned 10, and is a statement about the leak paths checked only — this dimension does not inventory the personal data a repository holds (the personal-data map and the C1-C5 compliance cards do that), so it never reports that a repository has no personal-data surface. Reported LOUDLY as a measurement gap if the ruleset is missing from the analyzer image. Exhaustive over the leak paths, advisory-leaning; degrades on parse failure.
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. semgrep could not parse 24 file(s) — `CodeApp/Managers/AppExtensionService.swift`, `CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/WorkSpaceStorage.swift`, `CodeApp/Managers/SearchManager.swift`, `CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift`, `CodeApp/Utilities/shortcutsMapping.swift`, … (+19 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.
REDACTED
What to do
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d32_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 92 of the 195 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with ExplorerFileTreeSection.swift. — 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.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.
Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.
What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.
Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 0 platform declaration(s) and 1 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 alternatives4.8 / 10Weak✓ 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. (×2) — LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/classic/base.html.j2:121, LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/lab/base.html.j2:129
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 & labels5.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.
Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. (×6) — LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter-widgets/jupyterlab-manager/static/638.f3e5e34a28f3334d4f08.js:2, LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter-widgets/jupyterlab-manager/static/638.f3e5e34a28f3334d4f08.js:2, LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter-widgets/jupyterlab-manager/static/638.f3e5e34a28f3334d4f08.js:2, …
A link with no text, aria-label or labelled child (e.g. an icon-only link) has no accessible name, so assistive tech can't say where it goes. Add visible text or an aria-label. (×2) — LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter-widgets/jupyterlab-manager/static/638.f3e5e34a28f3334d4f08.js:2, LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbextensions/jupyter-js-widgets/extension.js:39
What to do
Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC3 · Page structure5.0 / 10Weak✓ 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"). (×6) — Dependencies/terminal.bundle/index.html:2, LanguageResources/ClangLib/wasm.html:2, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/idlelib/help.html:4, …
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. This document's body is only the mount point <div id="overlay">, so there is no content here to wrap — render the <main> from the component mounted into it. — Dependencies/terminal.bundle/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. (×2) — Dependencies/terminal.bundle/index.html:5, LanguageResources/ClangLib/wasm.html:6
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. This document's body is only the mount point <div id="terminal">, so there is no content here to wrap — render the <main> from the component mounted into it. — LanguageResources/ClangLib/wasm.html:2
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×3) — LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/classic/index.html.j2:7, LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/lab/index.html.j2:7, LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/reveal/index.html.j2:12
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.
Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.
Coverage: Population: elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) that carry a role or an aria-* attribute; roles and token values are checked against the ARIA enums exhaustively within that set. An expression-valued (dynamic) role or aria-* value is skipped rather than guessed, and markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.
Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
`.cm-s-mdn-like.CodeMirror` sets color: #999 on background-color: #fff — 2.8:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them. — LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/lab/static/index.css:11540
`.rendered_html hr` sets color: black on background-color: black — 1.0:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them. — LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/classic/static/style.css:11190
What to do
Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.
Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.
Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.
No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (an accessibility check that can read your UI — no component framework was detected and your pages are rendered by server-side templates, which neither the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins nor the HTML-template linters can parse; run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, or assert the accessibility invariants over that rendered HTML in the test suite you already have) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start by running that check over your rendered pages in CI. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 15 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
What to do
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add an accessibility check that can read your UI — no component framework was detected and your pages are rendered by server-side templates, which neither the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins nor the HTML-template linters can parse; run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, or assert the accessibility invariants over that rendered HTML in the test suite you already have, then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.
Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.
Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.
`LocalGitServiceProvider.lookupCommit` is a read-named query yet it performs a durable write on the read path (a persist to a store/client). A query must stay side-effect-free so reads are safe to retry, cache, and route to a read replica; move the write into a command. — CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/Local/LocalGitServiceProvider.swift:393
What to do
Keep query handlers read-only — move the writes/event-publishes into a command handler so reads stay safe to retry, cache, and route to a read replica.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM4 · Rich vs anemic domain model10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Other · Domain Modelling — Whether domain entities own their behaviour — a data-only reference entity whose logic lives in a foreign service is anemic. Rich models enforce their own invariants.
Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.
Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.
Other · Domain Modelling — Whether a reference entity protects its own invariants — a class whose identity is a computed content hash but whose hashed fields are publicly mutable bypasses that invariant. Encapsulated state keeps identity-bearing fields immutable.
Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entities scanned for publicly writable state — public setters, and (C#/VB) own mutable collections handed out through an auto-property, a public field or a bare-field expression getter, where a computed/copying getter is never charged. One finding per entity; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.
Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 2 of 4 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1 pts.
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 significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
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.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.
Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
30/37 types (81%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.
What to do
Keep implementation types off the public surface (Swift: leave it `internal` (the default) instead of `public`) so internals can change without breaking consumers.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.
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 CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 4003 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — 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.
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.
Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.
Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
Other · Security — Only what this repository's own non-C# files could be read for was assessed — markup this repository SHIPS is scored for third-party script integrity whether or not the repository serves it itself, since a page handed to a consumer runs in that consumer’s origin. Nothing else in this dimension was assessed: the transport, cookie, input-validation and crypto controls are read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository’s language, so their absence here is not a finding about this repository.
`https://unpkg.com/@jupyter-widgets/html-manager@*/dist/embed-amd.js` 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. The URL also names no version, so it resolves to whatever that origin serves at fetch time — the executed bytes can change with nobody touching this repository. — LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbextensions/jupyter-js-widgets/extension.js:54
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.
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?
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).
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Unscored — 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.
D11 Test Reliability — 1 observation(s) recorded · This repository declares 1 of its own test(s) unreliable. The built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem (.swift), so the suite was not re-run and no reliability score is given — these are the repository's own declarations, not our measurement.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 17 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 68 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 — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
AX1 Captive dependencies — 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
AX2 Stateful singletons — 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
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
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 — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
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.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the Swift half could not be measured — the Swift suite in SwiftGit2 produced no coverage export. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
DM1 Aggregate boundaries — not scored for Swift: the sidecar flattens array/collection types (a child COLLECTION = legitimate membership vs a single embedded aggregate is indistinguishable), and aggregate-vs-value-object classification cannot be told apart in source (every struct-holding-struct reads alike) — reported as guidance rather than measured
DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no in-repo typed-id idiom — primitive-obsession recorded as advisory DM8, DM2 not gated
DM3 Integration-event coupling — not scored for Swift: a cross-SwiftPM-target domain leak cannot be told apart in source from a legitimate shared-kernel/contracts module, and most repositories ship a single module — reported as guidance rather than measured
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary — this Swift package maps no type to a persistence framework and declares no domain-model type carrying a method of its own, so DM6's domain↔infrastructure boundary read has no population to be taken over
DM7 Repository granularity — not scored for Swift: 'a repository per CHILD entity' needs the aggregate-root structure, which is not source-resolvable — reported as guidance rather than measured
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and this analysis resolves a call's owner only where the receiver's type is written down in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JavaScript/TypeScript, Swift source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `swift test --enable-code-coverage` (SwiftPM) or `xcodebuild test -scheme <YourScheme> -enableCodeCoverage YES` (an .xcodeproj/.xcworkspace suite), then `xcrun llvm-cov export -format=lcov`) 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 — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for a pytest-benchmark or pytest-codspeed dependency with tests taking the `benchmark` fixture, an asv.conf.json with its `time_`/`mem_`/`peakmem_` benchmarks, or a pyperf Runner, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's Swift has 26,267 production line(s), 5 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
<html> without a lang Dependencies/terminal.bundle/index.html:2— The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en").
<html> without a lang LanguageResources/ClangLib/wasm.html:2— The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en").
<html> without a lang LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/idlelib/help.html:4— The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en").
<html> without a lang LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/classic/index.html.j2:7— The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en").
<html> without a lang LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/lab/index.html.j2:7— The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en").
<html> without a lang LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/reveal/index.html.j2:12— The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en").
AC1 · Text alternatives· <img> without a text alternative · ×2
<img> without a text alternative LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/classic/base.html.j2:121— An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
<img> without a text alternative LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/lab/base.html.j2:129— An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
AC2 · Forms & labels· <select> without a programmatic label · ×2
<select> without a programmatic label LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter-widgets/jupyterlab-manager/static/638.f3e5e34a28f3334d4f08.js:2— This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<select> without a programmatic label LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbextensions/jupyter-js-widgets/extension.js:39— This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
AC2 · Forms & labels· Link with no accessible name · ×2
Link with no accessible name LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter-widgets/jupyterlab-manager/static/638.f3e5e34a28f3334d4f08.js:2— A link with no text, aria-label or labelled child (e.g. an icon-only link) has no accessible name, so assistive tech can't say where it goes. Add visible text or an aria-label.
Link with no accessible name LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbextensions/jupyter-js-widgets/extension.js:39— A link with no text, aria-label or labelled child (e.g. an icon-only link) has no accessible name, so assistive tech can't say where it goes. Add visible text or an aria-label.
AC2 · Forms & labels· <input> without a programmatic label · ×2
<input> without a programmatic label LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter-widgets/jupyterlab-manager/static/638.f3e5e34a28f3334d4f08.js:2— This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<input> without a programmatic label LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbextensions/jupyter-js-widgets/extension.js:39— This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
AC2 · Forms & labels· <textarea> without a programmatic label · ×2
<textarea> without a programmatic label LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter-widgets/jupyterlab-manager/static/638.f3e5e34a28f3334d4f08.js:2— This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<textarea> without a programmatic label LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbextensions/jupyter-js-widgets/extension.js:39— This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
Viewport restricts zoom Dependencies/terminal.bundle/index.html:5— 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.
Viewport restricts zoom LanguageResources/ClangLib/wasm.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.
AX9 · CQS / query purity· Query writes persistent state on the read path · ×1
Query writes persistent state on the read path: LocalGitServiceProvider.lookupCommit CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/Local/LocalGitServiceProvider.swift:393— `LocalGitServiceProvider.lookupCommit` is a read-named query yet it performs a durable write on the read path (a persist to a store/client). A query must stay side-effect-free so reads are safe to retry, cache, and route to a read replica; move the write into a command.
Assertions commented out: testExample SwiftWS/Tests/SwiftWSTests/SwiftWSTests.swift:5— The test body contains commented-out assertion calls and no live one — it runs, verifies nothing, and still passes. Restore the assertions or delete the test; a green test that checks nothing is worse than an absent one.
D10 · Test Quality· Test project verifies nothing · ×1
Test project verifies nothing: SwiftWSTests SwiftWS/Tests/SwiftWSTests/SwiftWSTests.swift:5— No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `SwiftWSTests` — the project as a whole, not one method. 1 of them has its assertions commented out, so this suite did verify conventionally and was switched off — it is not an approval/verifier harness.
D11 · Test Reliability· Test declared unreliable · ×1
Test declared unreliable: test_f2py LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/site-packages/numpy/tests/test_scripts.py:36— This test is disabled or skipped with a reason naming unreliability — the repository's own words: "Test is unreliable". A test that is skipped for flakiness is neither passing nor protecting the code it covers; either stabilise it or delete it, but do not leave it disabled indefinitely. (Found by reading the repository's own test source — the suite itself was not re-run, since the reliability runner does not support this ecosystem.)
TodoComment CodeApp/Errors/AppError.swift:10— // TODO: Add localization entries — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Managers/MainApp.swift:248— // TODO: Support deleted files detection for remote files — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Managers/MainApp.swift:519— // TODO: Modify SceneStorage? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Managers/MainApp.swift:1021— // TODO: A more efficient way to determine whether file is supported — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Managers/MainApp.swift:1039— // TODO: Update using updateUIView? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Managers/MainApp.swift:1121— // TODO: Avoid reading the same file twice — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Managers/MainApp.swift:1285— // TODO: This can be made more robust — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Managers/AppExtensionService.swift:84— // TODO: send real signal instead — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/Local/LocalGitCredentialsHelper.swift:24— // TODO: Localize this using LocalizedError — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/Local/LocalGitCredentialsHelper.swift:260— // TODO: Global SSH Key — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/SFTP/SFTPFileSystemProvider.swift:16— // TODO: Expose libssh2_sftp_last_error — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/SFTP/SFTPFileSystemProvider.swift:264— // TODO: Evaluate the performance penalty — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/SFTP/SFTPFileSystemProvider.swift:358— // TODO: Support OutputStream — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Extensions/VideoViewer/VideoViewerExtension.swift:41— // TODO: Support OutputStream — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Utilities/Utilities.swift:33— // TODO: Track programmer error — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Utilities/Utilities.swift:44— // TODO: Track programmer error — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Views/SettingsView.swift:45— // TODO: Rework Editor / Terminal settings to support multiple scenes — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Views/EditorView.swift:28— // TODO: Determine whether file is directory — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Views/EditorTab.swift:15— // TODO: Don't use ObservedObject because it leaks memory — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment CodeApp/Views/EditorTab.swift:35— // TODO: File Icons for extensions — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Extensions/ImageEditor/ImageEditorExtension.swift:14— // TODO: Localization — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Extensions/MarkdownViewer/MarkdownViewerExtension.swift:11— // TODO: Localization — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:298— // TODO: Evaluate whether this is a memory-safe code — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:336— // TODO: Handle local branch — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:460— // TODO: Find common ancestor — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
MethodTooLong: wasmWebViewDelegate.webView CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:63— MethodTooLong — webView runs 342 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 242 over it, 3.42× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: SettingsView.body CodeApp/Views/SettingsView.swift:42— MethodTooLong — body runs 224 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 124 over it, 2.24× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: TerminalInstance.userContentController CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:237— MethodTooLong — userContentController runs 161 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 61 over it, 1.61× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: ExplorerFileTree.buildContextMenu CodeApp/Views/ExplorerFileTreeSection.swift:91— MethodTooLong — buildContextMenu runs 144 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 44 over it, 1.44× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: RemoteCreateSection.body CodeApp/Views/RemoteCreateSection.swift:119— MethodTooLong — body runs 137 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 37 over it, 1.37× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: MainSection.body CodeApp/Views/SourceControlSection.swift:116— MethodTooLong — body runs 125 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 25 over it, 1.25× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: TerminalKeyboardToolBar.body CodeApp/Views/TerminalKeyboardToolbar.swift:129— MethodTooLong — body runs 116 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 16 over it, 1.16× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: EditorView.body CodeApp/Views/EditorView.swift:33— MethodTooLong — body runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.09× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: TopBar.body CodeApp/Views/TopBar.swift:24— MethodTooLong — body runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.09× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: MainView.body CodeApp/Containers/MainScene.swift:160— MethodTooLong — body runs 108 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 8 over it, 1.08× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
TooManyMethods: Repository SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:179— 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: MainApp CodeApp/Managers/MainApp.swift:141— TooManyMethods — 46 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 16 over it, 1.53× 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: MonacoImplementation CodeApp/Managers/EditorImplementation/MonacoImplementation.swift:50— TooManyMethods — 44 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 14 over it, 1.47× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: RunestoneImplementation CodeApp/Managers/EditorImplementation/RunestoneImplementation.swift:308— TooManyMethods — 44 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 14 over it, 1.47× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: LocalGitServiceProvider CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/Local/LocalGitServiceProvider.swift:28— TooManyMethods — 34 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 4 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: WorkSpaceStorage CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/WorkSpaceStorage.swift:12— TooManyMethods — 34 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 4 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: TerminalInstance CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:21— TooManyMethods — 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× 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.
Low cohesion: RunestoneImplementation (LCOM4 18) CodeApp/Managers/EditorImplementation/RunestoneImplementation.swift:308— RunestoneImplementation's methods fall into 18 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 18 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: LocalFileSystemProvider (LCOM4 9) CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/Local/LocalFileSystemProvider.swift:10— LocalFileSystemProvider's methods fall into 9 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 9 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: MainApp (LCOM4 7) CodeApp/Managers/MainApp.swift:141— MainApp's methods fall into 7 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 7 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: SFTPTerminalServiceProvider (LCOM4 5) CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/SFTP/SFTPTerminalServiceProvider.swift:11— SFTPTerminalServiceProvider's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: WebViewBase (LCOM4 4) CodeApp/Managers/WebViewBase.swift:38— WebViewBase's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: TableViewDelegate (LCOM4 4) CodeApp/Views/FileTreeView.swift:28— TableViewDelegate's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: String (LCOM4 4) CodeApp/Extensions/String+base64EncodedDecoded.swift:10— String's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
AC3 · Page structure· Page without a main landmark · ×5
Page without a main landmark Dependencies/terminal.bundle/index.html:2— No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. This document's body is only the mount point <div id="overlay">, so there is no content here to wrap — render the <main> from the component mounted into it.
Page without a main landmark LanguageResources/ClangLib/wasm.html:2— No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. This document's body is only the mount point <div id="terminal">, so there is no content here to wrap — render the <main> from the component mounted into it.
Page without a main landmark LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/classic/index.html.j2:7— No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/lab/index.html.j2:7— No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/reveal/index.html.j2:12— No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Floating branch dependency: libgit2-on-ios — Dependency `libgit2-on-ios` is declared in SwiftGit2/Package.swift against branch `master` — the declaration pins no immutable point, so `swift package update` moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time, which is code nobody reviewed. Pin it to a version requirement (`from:`, `.upToNextMajor(from:)`, `exact:`) or to a `revision:` commit SHA.
Floating branch dependency: fileprovider — Dependency `fileprovider` is resolved in Code.xcodeproj/project.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved against branch `master` rather than a released version — the project pins no immutable point, so resolving the packages again moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time. Change the dependency rule in Xcode to a version requirement, or to an exact commit.
Floating branch dependency: gcdwebserver — Dependency `gcdwebserver` is resolved in Code.xcodeproj/project.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved against branch `master` rather than a released version — the project pins no immutable point, so resolving the packages again moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time. Change the dependency rule in Xcode to a version requirement, or to an exact commit.
Floating branch dependency: libgit2-on-ios — Dependency `libgit2-on-ios` is resolved in Code.xcodeproj/project.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved against branch `master` rather than a released version — the project pins no immutable point, so resolving the packages again moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time. Change the dependency rule in Xcode to a version requirement, or to an exact commit.
Floating branch dependency: markdownview — Dependency `markdownview` is resolved in Code.xcodeproj/project.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved against branch `master` rather than a released version — the project pins no immutable point, so resolving the packages again moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time. Change the dependency rule in Xcode to a version requirement, or to an exact commit.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) CodeApp/Views/EditorKeyboardToolBar.swift:133— CodeApp/Views/EditorKeyboardToolBar.swift:133-145 | CodeApp/Views/TerminalKeyboardToolbar.swift:245-257 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Views/EditorKeyboardToolBar.swift:133` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Extensions/ImageEditor/ImageEditorExtension.swift:19— Extensions/ImageEditor/ImageEditorExtension.swift:19-31 | Extensions/ImageViewer/ImageViewerExtension.swift:18-30 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Extensions/ImageEditor/ImageEditorExtension.swift:39— Extensions/ImageEditor/ImageEditorExtension.swift:39-51 | Extensions/ImageViewer/ImageViewerExtension.swift:38-50 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Extensions/ImageEditor/ImageEditorExtension.swift:39` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:660— SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:660-672 | SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:698-710 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:660` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/Local/LocalGitServiceProvider.swift:268— CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/Local/LocalGitServiceProvider.swift:268-280 | CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/Local/LocalGitServiceProvider.swift:283-295 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) CodeApp/Views/PanelView.swift:24— CodeApp/Views/PanelView.swift:24-28 | CodeApp/Views/SourceControlSection.swift:273-277 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Views/PanelView.swift:24` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Extensions/ImageEditor/ImageEditorExtension.swift:64— Extensions/ImageEditor/ImageEditorExtension.swift:64-68 | Extensions/VideoViewer/VideoViewerExtension.swift:39-43 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Extensions/ImageEditor/ImageEditorExtension.swift:64` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) CodeApp/Views/ActivityBar.swift:75— CodeApp/Views/ActivityBar.swift:75-79 | CodeApp/Views/CompactSidebar.swift:19-23 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/SFTP/SFTPFileSystemProvider.swift:236— CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/SFTP/SFTPFileSystemProvider.swift:236-240 | CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/SFTP/SFTPTerminalServiceProvider.swift:135-139 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:159— CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:159-163 | CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:177-181 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:273— CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:273-280 | CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:282-289 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:273` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) CodeApp/Views/SettingsView.swift:367— CodeApp/Views/SettingsView.swift:367-375 | CodeApp/Views/SourceControlIdentityConfiguration.swift:30-37 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Views/SettingsView.swift:367` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) CodeApp/Views/SourceControlSection.swift:172— CodeApp/Views/SourceControlSection.swift:172-179 | CodeApp/Views/SourceControlSection.swift:236-243 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Views/SourceControlSection.swift:172` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
ClassTooLong: Repository SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:179— ClassTooLong — 749 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 71 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 349 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.
ClassTooLong: MainApp CodeApp/Managers/MainApp.swift:141— ClassTooLong — 722 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 46 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 322 over it, 1.81× 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.
FileTooLong: Managers/MainApp.swift CodeApp/Managers/MainApp.swift— FileTooLong — 881 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 82% of them inside a single declaration: MainApp (141-1230). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 381 over it, 1.76× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: SwiftGit2/Repository.swift SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift— FileTooLong — 859 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 87% of them inside a single declaration: Repository (179-1560). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 359 over it, 1.72× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:412— CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:412-430 | CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:451-469 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:412` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) CodeApp/Utilities/Shared/ExtensionCommunicationHelper.swift:15— CodeApp/Utilities/Shared/ExtensionCommunicationHelper.swift:15-33 | CodeApp/Utilities/Shared/ExtensionCommunicationHelper.swift:36-54 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) CodeApp/CodeApp.swift:239— CodeApp/CodeApp.swift:239-250 | NodeExtension/System.swift:45-56 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Extensions/MonacoEditor/Views/VimKeyBufferLabel.swift:16— Extensions/MonacoEditor/Views/VimKeyBufferLabel.swift:16-27 | Extensions/MonacoEditor/Views/VimModeLabel.swift:18-29 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Extensions/MonacoEditor/Views/VimKeyBufferLabel.swift:16` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:1092— SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:1092-1097 | SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:1124-1129 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:1092` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/WorkSpaceStorage.swift:465— CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/WorkSpaceStorage.swift:465-471 | CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/WorkSpaceStorage.swift:516-521 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/WorkSpaceStorage.swift:465` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Low contrast colour pair in CSS (2.8:1) LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/lab/static/index.css:11540— `.cm-s-mdn-like.CodeMirror` sets color: #999 on background-color: #fff — 2.8:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them.
Low contrast colour pair in CSS (1.0:1) LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbconvert/templates/classic/static/style.css:11190— `.rendered_html hr` sets color: black on background-color: black — 1.0:1, 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 a11y linter (an accessibility check that can read your UI — no component framework was detected and your pages are rendered by server-side templates, which neither the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins nor the HTML-template linters can parse; run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, or assert the accessibility invariants over that rendered HTML in the test suite you already have) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start by running that check over your rendered pages in CI. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 15 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.
wasmWebViewDelegate.webView (cyclomatic 88) CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:63— wasmWebViewDelegate.webView has cyclomatic complexity 88 (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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift holds 2 of the 13 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 79 of the 163 points over it (48%), 2.7× the next-largest file (CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift at 29). 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.
TerminalInstance.userContentController (cyclomatic 44) CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:237— TerminalInstance.userContentController has cyclomatic complexity 44 (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.
RunestoneImplementation.detectLangauge (cyclomatic 38) CodeApp/Managers/EditorImplementation/RunestoneImplementation.swift:415— RunestoneImplementation.detectLangauge has cyclomatic complexity 38 (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.
node.swift.npm (cyclomatic 23) CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift:75— node.swift.npm has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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.
CodeApp.swift.createCSDK (cyclomatic 22) CodeApp/CodeApp.swift:85— CodeApp.swift.createCSDK has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
wasm.swift.executeWebAssembly (cyclomatic 21) CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:550— wasm.swift.executeWebAssembly 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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift holds 2 of the 13 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 79 of the 163 points over it (48%), 2.7× the next-largest file (CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift at 29). 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.
ExplorerFileTree.buildContextMenu (cyclomatic 20) CodeApp/Views/ExplorerFileTreeSection.swift:91— ExplorerFileTree.buildContextMenu has cyclomatic complexity 20 (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.
TerminalKeyboardToolBar.body (cyclomatic 20) CodeApp/Views/TerminalKeyboardToolbar.swift:129— TerminalKeyboardToolBar.body has cyclomatic complexity 20 (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.
EditorView.body (cyclomatic 17) CodeApp/Views/EditorView.swift:33— EditorView.body has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
MonacoImplementation.userContentController (cyclomatic 17) CodeApp/Managers/EditorImplementation/MonacoImplementation.swift:227— MonacoImplementation.userContentController has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
MainView.body (cyclomatic 16) CodeApp/Containers/MainScene.swift:160— MainView.body has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
RemoteCreateSection.body (cyclomatic 16) CodeApp/Views/RemoteCreateSection.swift:119— RemoteCreateSection.body has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
ShortcutPreview.body (cyclomatic 16) CodeApp/Views/SettingsKeyboardShortcuts.swift:141— ShortcutPreview.body has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· Dependency not covered by the committed resolution · ×1
Dependency not covered by the committed resolution: libgit2-on-ios — `libgit2-on-ios` is declared in SwiftGit2/Package.swift but has no entry in the committed `Package.resolved` beside it, so its version is resolved rather than pinned. Resolve the package and commit the updated `Package.resolved`.
FixmeComment SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:507— // FIXME: This is stepping on the local tree — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
wasmWebViewDelegate.webView (cognitive 299) CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:63— wasmWebViewDelegate.webView has cognitive complexity 299 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 97 (238 pts), error handling 11 (45 pts), loops 2 (11 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 184). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift holds 2 of the 21 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 306 of the 555 points over it (55%), 4.3× the next-largest file (CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift at 71). 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.
node.swift.npm (cognitive 86) CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift:75— node.swift.npm has cognitive complexity 86 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (77 pts), loops 1 (6 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 63). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
TerminalInstance.userContentController (cognitive 63) CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:237— TerminalInstance.userContentController has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (47 pts), match/switch 4 (7 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 30). 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.
CodeApp.swift.createCSDK (cognitive 41) CodeApp/CodeApp.swift:85— CodeApp.swift.createCSDK has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (26 pts), error handling 5 (10 pts), loops 3, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 19). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
RunestoneImplementation.detectLangauge (cognitive 37) CodeApp/Managers/EditorImplementation/RunestoneImplementation.swift:415— RunestoneImplementation.detectLangauge has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 35, boolean chains 2. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
wasm.swift.executeWebAssembly (cognitive 37) CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:550— wasm.swift.executeWebAssembly has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (32 pts), loops 3 (4 pts), ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift holds 2 of the 21 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 306 of the 555 points over it (55%), 4.3× the next-largest file (CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift at 71). 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.
EditorView.body (cognitive 25) CodeApp/Views/EditorView.swift:33— EditorView.body has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (21 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
CloudCodeExecutionManager.runCode (cognitive 25) Extensions/RemoteExecution/CloudCodeExecutionManager.swift:58— CloudCodeExecutionManager.runCode has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (20 pts), error handling 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
TerminalInstance.webView (cognitive 22) CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:511— TerminalInstance.webView has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 12). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
ExplorerFileTree.buildContextMenu (cognitive 22) CodeApp/Views/ExplorerFileTreeSection.swift:91— ExplorerFileTree.buildContextMenu has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, ternaries 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 1, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
TableViewDelegate.tableView (cognitive 22) CodeApp/Views/FileTreeView.swift:363— TableViewDelegate.tableView has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), boolean chains 4, 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.
ShortcutPreview.body (cognitive 22) CodeApp/Views/SettingsKeyboardShortcuts.swift:141— ShortcutPreview.body has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (19 pts), boolean chains 3 (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.
ExplorerFileTree.foldersWithFilter (cognitive 21) CodeApp/Views/ExplorerFileTreeSection.swift:30— ExplorerFileTree.foldersWithFilter has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (16 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (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.
TerminalKeyboardToolBar.body (cognitive 21) CodeApp/Views/TerminalKeyboardToolbar.swift:129— TerminalKeyboardToolBar.body has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 11, if/else 6 (7 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
ExplorerContainer.body (cognitive 20) CodeApp/Containers/ExplorerContainer.swift:119— ExplorerContainer.body has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), loops 2 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
WorkSpaceStorage._connectToServer (cognitive 20) CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/WorkSpaceStorage.swift:146— WorkSpaceStorage._connectToServer has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), boolean chains 2, error handling 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 8). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
MainView.body (cognitive 19) CodeApp/Containers/MainScene.swift:160— MainView.body has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (14 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
RemoteCreateSection.body (cognitive 19) CodeApp/Views/RemoteCreateSection.swift:119— RemoteCreateSection.body has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (15 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
MonacoImplementation.injectTypes (cognitive 17) CodeApp/Managers/EditorImplementation/MonacoImplementation.swift:190— MonacoImplementation.injectTypes has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (9 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ThemeManager.loadBuiltInThemes (cognitive 16) CodeApp/Managers/ThemeManager.swift:46— ThemeManager.loadBuiltInThemes has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (9 pts), boolean chains 6, 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.
TopBar.body (cognitive 16) CodeApp/Views/TopBar.swift:24— TopBar.body has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (12 pts), boolean chains 2, ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Inconsistent naming for creation operations. 'createBranch' uses 'at' for the target commit, while 'createLightweightTag' and 'createAnnotatedTag' use 'oid'. This creates confusion about whether the parameter represents a commit object, an OID, or a generic reference target. · ×1
Inconsistent naming for creation operations. 'createBranch' uses 'at' for the target commit, while 'createLightweightTag' and 'createAnnotatedTag' use 'oid'. This creates confusion about whether the parameter represents a commit object, an OID, or a generic reference target. — Standardize the parameter name for the target commit/oid across all creation methods, e.g., use 'target' or 'oid' consistently. (signatures: Repository.createBranch(at: Commit, branchName: String) | Repository.createLightweightTag(oid: OID, tagName: String, force: Bool) | Repository.createAnnotatedTag(oid: OID, tagName: String, annotation: String, signature: Signature, force: Bool))
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Redundant specific fetch methods alongside a generic fetch. The specific methods (blob, commit, tag, tree) are thin wrappers around the generic 'object(OID)' method. This duplicates intent and forces the user to know the type beforehand or handle casting, whereas 'object' returns a generic type that requires inspection. · ×1
Redundant specific fetch methods alongside a generic fetch. The specific methods (blob, commit, tag, tree) are thin wrappers around the generic 'object(OID)' method. This duplicates intent and forces the user to know the type beforehand or handle casting, whereas 'object' returns a generic type that requires inspection. — Remove the specific fetch methods (blob, commit, tag, tree) and rely on the generic 'object(OID)' combined with a type-checking mechanism or a generic 'object<T>(OID)' method to reduce API surface and inconsistency. (signatures: Repository.object(OID): Result<ObjectType, NSError> | Repository.blob(OID): Result<Blob, NSError> | Repository.commit(OID): Result<Commit, NSError> | Repository.tag(OID): Result<Tag, NSError> | Repository.tree(OID): Result<Tree, NSError>)
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Inconsistent return types for reference lookups. 'reference(named · ×1
Inconsistent return types for reference lookups. 'reference(named:)' returns a generic 'ReferenceType', while specific lookups like 'localBranch', 'remoteBranch', and 'tag' return strongly typed 'Branch' or 'TagReference'. This forces the user to use different methods depending on whether they want a specific type or a generic reference, creating a fragmented API for the same underlying operation (lookup by name). — Unify reference lookups. Either have all methods return the specific type (Branch, TagReference, etc.) or have a single 'reference(named:)' method that returns a generic type with a safe cast, or provide a generic 'reference<T>(named:)' method. (signatures: Repository.reference(named: String): Result<ReferenceType, NSError> | Repository.localBranch(named: String): Result<Branch, NSError> | Repository.remoteBranch(named: String): Result<Branch, NSError> | Repository.tag(named: String): Result<TagReference, NSError>)
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Inconsistent naming for collection retrieval. 'allRemotes' and 'allTags' use the 'all' prefix, while 'localBranches' and 'remoteBranches' do not. This suggests a lack of a unified pattern for listing entities. · ×1
Inconsistent naming for collection retrieval. 'allRemotes' and 'allTags' use the 'all' prefix, while 'localBranches' and 'remoteBranches' do not. This suggests a lack of a unified pattern for listing entities. — Standardize collection retrieval method names, e.g., use 'listRemotes', 'listBranches', 'listTags' or 'allRemotes', 'allBranches', 'allTags' consistently. (signatures: Repository.allRemotes(): Result<[Remote], NSError> | Repository.remote(named: String): Result<Remote, NSError> | Repository.localBranches(): Result<[Branch], NSError> | Repository.remoteBranches(): Result<[Branch], NSError> | Repository.allTags(): Result<[TagReference], NSError>)
FunctionTooLong: CodeApp.swift.createCSDK CodeApp/CodeApp.swift:85— FunctionTooLong — createCSDK runs 104 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 4 over it, 1.04× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
Change coupling: ExplorerFileTreeSection.swift ↔ FileTreeView.swift CodeApp/Views/ExplorerFileTreeSection.swift— `CodeApp/Views/ExplorerFileTreeSection.swift` and `CodeApp/Views/FileTreeView.swift` 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). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `4a476e62` filetree: context menu at root; `4d0a8c4b` Remove unused code and comments; `d5b463e2` filetree: drop to root — run `git show` on any of them.
D4 · Code Duplication· Edited copy of a member (36 corresponding lines) · ×1
Edited copy of a member (36 corresponding lines) CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/SFTP/SFTPFileSystemProvider.swift:115— CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/SFTP/SFTPFileSystemProvider.swift:115-171 | CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/SFTP/SFTPTerminalServiceProvider.swift:40-92 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 36 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.
D4 · Code Duplication· Edited copy of a member (13 corresponding lines) · ×1
Edited copy of a member (13 corresponding lines) CodeApp/Managers/NotificationManager.swift:23— CodeApp/Managers/NotificationManager.swift:23-37 | CodeApp/Managers/NotificationManager.swift:39-57 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 13 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.
Duplicated block (36 lines × 2) CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/SFTP/SFTPFileSystemProvider.swift:126— CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/SFTP/SFTPFileSystemProvider.swift:126-161 | CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/SFTP/SFTPTerminalServiceProvider.swift:43-78 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Managers/FileSystem/SFTP/SFTPFileSystemProvider.swift:126` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:432— CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:432-448 | CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:471-486 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Utilities/wasm.swift:432` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) CodeApp/Views/ExplorerFileTreeSection.swift:145— CodeApp/Views/ExplorerFileTreeSection.swift:145-161 | CodeApp/Views/ExplorerFileTreeSection.swift:163-179 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Views/ExplorerFileTreeSection.swift:145` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (12–17 lines × 2) SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:88— SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:88-104 | SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:165-176 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `SwiftGit2/SwiftGit2/Repository.swift:88` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `credentials` to `Credentials` in one and `Credentials = .default` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:257— CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:257-271 | CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:281-295 | CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:428-442 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:257` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) CodeApp/CodeApp.swift:101— CodeApp/CodeApp.swift:101-112 | CodeApp/CodeApp.swift:114-126 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (10–12 lines × 2) CodeApp/Containers/SourceControlContainer.swift:84— CodeApp/Containers/SourceControlContainer.swift:84-93 | CodeApp/Containers/SourceControlContainer.swift:182-193 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Containers/SourceControlContainer.swift:84` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) CodeApp/Views/SettingsThemeConfiguration.swift:26— CodeApp/Views/SettingsThemeConfiguration.swift:26-37 | CodeApp/Views/SettingsThemeConfiguration.swift:47-57 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Views/SettingsThemeConfiguration.swift:26` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Extensions/MonacoEditor/Views/VimKeyBufferLabel.swift:31— Extensions/MonacoEditor/Views/VimKeyBufferLabel.swift:31-41 | Extensions/MonacoEditor/Views/VimModeLabel.swift:33-43 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Extensions/MonacoEditor/Views/VimKeyBufferLabel.swift:31` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (8–11 lines × 2) CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift:150— CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift:150-160 | CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift:261-268 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift:150` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:325— CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:325-334 | CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:545-553 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:325` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 2) CodeApp/Managers/NotificationManager.swift:28— CodeApp/Managers/NotificationManager.swift:28-34 | CodeApp/Managers/NotificationManager.swift:46-53 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Managers/NotificationManager.swift:28` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) CodeApp/Views/CompactSidebar.swift:33— CodeApp/Views/CompactSidebar.swift:33-42 | CodeApp/Views/TopBar.swift:31-37 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Views/CompactSidebar.swift:33` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift:156— CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift:156-163 | CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift:186-192 | CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift:238-243 | CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift:266-271 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift:156` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift:235` calls `resolveSymlinksInPath` and `CodeApp/Utilities/node.swift:183` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) CodeApp/Views/CompactSidebar.swift:37— CodeApp/Views/CompactSidebar.swift:37-47 | CodeApp/Views/TopBar.swift:35-40 | CodeApp/Views/TopBar.swift:226-231 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `CodeApp/Views/CompactSidebar.swift:37` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) CodeApp/Containers/ExplorerContainer.swift:33— CodeApp/Containers/ExplorerContainer.swift:33-38 | CodeApp/Managers/TerminalInstance.swift:218-222 | CodeApp/Utilities/file/openFilesApp.swift:11-16 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) CodeApp/Views/SearchUnsupportedSection.swift:11— CodeApp/Views/SearchUnsupportedSection.swift:11-19 | CodeApp/Views/SourceControlUnsupportedSection.swift:11-19 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Coverage not measured — Swift suite — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the Swift half could not be measured — the Swift suite in SwiftGit2 produced no coverage export. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
Third-party script without Subresource Integrity LanguageResources/Library/share/jupyter/nbextensions/jupyter-js-widgets/extension.js:54— `https://unpkg.com/@jupyter-widgets/html-manager@*/dist/embed-amd.js` 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. The URL also names no version, so it resolves to whatever that origin serves at fetch time — the executed bytes can change with nobody touching this repository.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/distutils/msvc9compiler.py:350— `"DISTUTILS_USE_SDK" in os.environ and "MSSdk" in os.environ and self.find_exe("cl.exe")` appears character-identically in 2 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/distutils/msvc9compiler.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/distutils/msvccompiler.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/lib2to3/pgen2/tokenize.py:234— `enc == "utf-8" or enc.startswith("utf-8-")` appears character-identically in 2 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/lib2to3/pgen2/tokenize.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/tokenize.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/lib2to3/pgen2/tokenize.py:236— `enc in ("latin-1", "iso-8859-1", "iso-latin-1") or enc.startswith(("latin-1-", "iso-8859-1-", "iso-latin-1-"))` appears character-identically in 2 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/lib2to3/pgen2/tokenize.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/tokenize.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/cgi.py:219— `end > 0 and (s.count('"', 0, end) - s.count('\\"', 0, end)) % 2` appears character-identically in 2 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/cgi.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/email/message.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/imaplib.py:344— `exc.errno != errno.ENOTCONN and getattr(exc, 'winerror', 0) != 10022` appears character-identically in 2 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/imaplib.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/poplib.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/linecache.py:88— `filename.startswith('<') and filename.endswith('>')` appears character-identically in 2 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/linecache.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/trace.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/idlelib/pyshell.py:716— `getattr(value, 'msg', '') or value or "<no detail available>"` appears character-identically in 2 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/idlelib/pyshell.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/idlelib/runscript.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/bz2.py:88— `hasattr(filename, "read") or hasattr(filename, "write")` appears character-identically in 3 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/bz2.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/gzip.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/lzma.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/multiprocessing/spawn.py:246— `mod_name == "__main__" or mod_name.endswith(".__main__")` appears character-identically in 2 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/multiprocessing/spawn.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/runpy.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/distutils/sysconfig.py:366— `name.startswith('PY_') and name[3:] in renamed_variables` appears character-identically in 2 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/distutils/sysconfig.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/sysconfig.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/ctypes/__init__.py:385— `name.startswith('__') and name.endswith('__')` appears character-identically in 2 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/ctypes/__init__.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/pydoc.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/lib2to3/fixes/fix_dict.py:94— `node.parent.parent is not None and self.p1.match(node.parent.parent, results) and results["node"] is node` appears character-identically in 2 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/lib2to3/fixes/fix_dict.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/lib2to3/fixes/fix_xrange.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/distutils/util.py:51— `os.name != "posix" or not hasattr(os, 'uname')` appears character-identically in 2 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/distutils/util.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/sysconfig.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/lib2to3/fixes/fix_dict.py:106— `self.p2.match(node.parent, results) and results["node"] is node` appears character-identically in 2 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/lib2to3/fixes/fix_dict.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/lib2to3/fixes/fix_xrange.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/_osx_support.py:80— `sys.platform == 'darwin' and os.uname().machine.startswith('iP')` appears character-identically in 6 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/_osx_support.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/distutils/unixccompiler.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/platform.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/pydoc.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/multiprocessing/context.py:148— `sys.platform == 'win32' and getattr(sys, 'frozen', False)` appears character-identically in 2 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/multiprocessing/context.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/multiprocessing/popen_spawn_win32.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/asyncio/base_events.py:907— `total_sent > 0 and hasattr(file, 'seek')` appears character-identically in 2 files — LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/asyncio/base_events.py, LanguageResources/Library/lib/python3.9/socket.py. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
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/`.
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.
P10 · Library API & versioning· Large public API surface · ×1
Large public API surface — 30/37 types (81%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 4003 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.
Outdated: cwlcatchexception — `cwlcatchexception` is resolved at 2.1.1, but 2.2.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/mattgallagher/CwlCatchException.git within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update cwlcatchexception` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: cwlpreconditiontesting — `cwlpreconditiontesting` is resolved at 2.1.0, but 2.2.2 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/mattgallagher/CwlPreconditionTesting.git within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update cwlpreconditiontesting` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-atomics — `swift-atomics` is resolved at 1.2.0, but 1.3.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/apple/swift-atomics.git within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-atomics` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-collections — `swift-collections` is resolved at 1.1.2, but 1.7.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/apple/swift-collections.git within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-collections` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-nio — `swift-nio` is resolved at 2.68.0, but 2.103.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/apple/swift-nio.git within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-nio` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-nio — `swift-nio` is resolved at 2.69.0, but 2.103.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/apple/swift-nio.git within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-nio` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-nio-transport-services — `swift-nio-transport-services` is resolved at 1.21.0, but 1.28.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/apple/swift-nio-transport-services within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-nio-transport-services` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-system — `swift-system` is resolved at 1.3.2, but 1.8.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/apple/swift-system.git within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-system` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: tree-sitter — `tree-sitter` is resolved at 0.20.9, but 0.27.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update tree-sitter` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: ziparchive — `ziparchive` is resolved at 2.4.3, but 2.6.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/ZipArchive/ZipArchive.git within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update ziparchive` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: zipfoundation — `zipfoundation` is resolved at 0.9.15, but 0.9.20 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/weichsel/ZIPFoundation.git within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update zipfoundation` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
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.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
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.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
Run 01a0f424-9ba0-719b-b72c-8b6ba3fb90ba · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 42 · Warnings: 158 · Recommendations: 28 · Info: 11 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 30-09-2026 @ 21:07 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.