Public report — console, 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 survey Measured under the Code Assurance Index · rubric rubric-2026.09.18 (frozen) · verify this survey Filed cd_cb458be1198a4bcabaeda8c28f636e8f Filed 30 September 2026, 09:22 UTC Public

Tokio-Rs/console

Measured 30 September 2026, 09:06 UTC

67% Strong
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Performance 100% Exemplary Architecture 97% Exemplary Code Health 89% Exemplary Security 76% Adequate Readiness 64% Strong Maturity 58% Adequate

Small · 11,552 LoC · 4 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Maturity (58%)

Findings by grade

53 critical 82 serious 43 minor 35 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, 09:06 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 ▸

40/44dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 4 LLM-assisted, advisory
133findings with an exact file:lineof 178 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
44/121dimensions across the health lenses11552 LoC · 4 projects — wide & deep
Chapters

Executive summary

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

This system holds a strong overall standing with a score of 67%, indicating a healthy asset that is well-engineered but carries specific operational risks. While the code is clean and the architecture is robust, the organization’s ability to maintain and operate it over time is the primary concern. The system is small, comprising roughly 11,500 lines of production code, with a rebuild cost estimated at just €16,000 for one engineer. This low barrier to entry means the business is not locked in by complexity, but it also means the value at stake is modest compared to larger platforms.

The most significant risk lies in Maturity, which scored only 58%. This lens measures whether a new team could pick up the work and whether decisions are documented. Without this institutional knowledge, the system becomes fragile as personnel change, leading to potential delays and defects when modifications are needed. The lack of recorded architectural decisions means the team is relying on tribal knowledge rather than a shared, durable record of why things were built a certain way. This creates a hidden cost in onboarding and decision-making speed.

Another area of concern is Production Readiness at 64%. While the code is secure and performant, the lack of structured logging across all modules means that diagnosing issues in production is difficult. This increases the mean time to resolve outages, directly impacting reliability and customer trust. The system is safe to run, but not easy to fix when things go wrong, which can lead to prolonged downtime and higher support costs.

On the positive side, the code health is excellent at 89%, and the architecture is nearly perfect at 97%. The system is highly maintainable and scalable, with no significant technical debt in the code structure. Performance is also perfect, ensuring a smooth user experience. These strengths provide a solid foundation for future growth.

The highest-leverage action is to record significant decisions in a centralized, discoverable format. This single step will immediately improve maturity, reduce onboarding time, and prevent future architectural drift. It is a low-effort, high-impact move that protects the system’s long-term viability. Once this is in place, the team can address logging and other operational improvements with greater confidence and clarity.

Code Health 89% ★ Exemplary Architecture 97% ★ Exemplary Maturity 58% Adequate · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 64% Strong Security 76% Adequate · gated by D29, D36 Performance 100% ★ Exemplary
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Maturity 58% · 46% weightReadiness 64% · 25% weightSecurity 76% · 14% weightCode Health 89% · 8% weightArchitecture 97% · 4% weightPerformance 100% · 2% weight

Raise Maturity 58 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 67 → ~71.

Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (2+)

2 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-09-14) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D22 · Redundant and confusing construction paths. `ConsoleLayer.new()` returns a `(ConsoleLayer, Server)` tuple, which duplicates the return type of `Builder.build()`. Furthermore, `ConsoleLayer.builder()` returns a `Builder`, implying one can construct a `ConsoleLayer` via the builder pattern, but `ConsoleLayer` also has a direct constructor `new()`. This creates three different ways to achieve the same result (getting a ConsoleLayer and Server), with unclear precedence or semantic difference between `new` and `build`.
  • D22 · Inconsistent and confusing method naming/signatures. `serve_with` and `serve_with_grpc_web` take a `builder: Server` as an argument, which is semantically incorrect (a server does not take another server as a builder). It is likely these methods are meant to configure the server before serving, but the signature suggests passing a server instance. Additionally, having `serve`, `serve_with`, and `serve_with_grpc_web` on the same type creates ambiguity about which one to use and what the 'with' variants actually do differently if not via the confusingly named parameter.

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €5,400–€27,000
Cost to rebuild€5,400–€27,000 (0.1–0.2 person-years (91–287 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.9× (at 67% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€16,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 58% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

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

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
+7.8 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality
2
Resolve the 2 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with mod.rs, stats.rs.
+5.3 pts · Low effort · Knowledge Freshness
3
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
+8.3 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 58%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (11,552 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 58%
→ Direct remediation budget at Maturity 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: 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). The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ 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).

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.

arch console-api console-api console-subscriber console-subscriber console-subscriber->console-api tokio-console tokio-console tokio-console->console-api xtask xtask

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.)

67 modules, 167 dependencies. 4 dependency cycles across 17 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 27 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →1 console-subscriber.examples.grpc_web.app.src.gen.google.protobuf.timestamp_pb2 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.common.field3 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.common.metadata4 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.tasks.task_details5 tokio_console.intern6 console-subscriber.examples.grpc_web.app.src.gen.common_pb7 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.common.register_metadata8 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.resources9 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.tasks10 console-subscriber.examples.grpc_web.app.src.gen.async_ops_pb11 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.instrument12 console-subscriber.examples.grpc_web.app.src.gen.resources_pb13 console-subscriber.examples.grpc_web.app.src.gen.tasks_pb14 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.common15 console-subscriber.examples.grpc_web.app.src.gen.instrument_pb16 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.async_ops17 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.trace.trace_event18 console_subscriber.attribute19 tokio_console.state.store20 tokio_console.view.styles21 console_subscriber.record22 console_subscriber.stats23 tokio_console.config24 tokio_console.view.help25 console_subscriber.aggregator.id_data26 tokio_console.state.async_ops27 tokio_console.state.histogram28 tokio_console.view.table29 tokio_console.view.task30 console_subscriber.aggregator31 tokio_console.state.resources32 tokio_console.state.tasks33 tokio_console.view34 tokio_console.view.async_ops35 tokio_console.view.resource36 tokio_console.view.resources37 tokio_console.view.tasks38 console_subscriber39 tokio_console.state40 console_subscriber.visitors
1 console-subscriber.examples.grpc_web.app.src.gen.google.protobuf.timestamp_pb
2 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.common.field
3 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.common.metadata
4 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.tasks.task_details
5 tokio_console.intern
6 console-subscriber.examples.grpc_web.app.src.gen.common_pb2
7 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.common.register_metadata2
8 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.resources16
9 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.tasks17
10 console-subscriber.examples.grpc_web.app.src.gen.async_ops_pb14
11 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.instrument1121
12 console-subscriber.examples.grpc_web.app.src.gen.resources_pb151
13 console-subscriber.examples.grpc_web.app.src.gen.tasks_pb251
14 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.common211
15 console-subscriber.examples.grpc_web.app.src.gen.instrument_pb12111
16 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.async_ops5
17 console_api.generated.rs.tokio.console.trace.trace_event3
18 console_subscriber.attribute124
19 tokio_console.state.store41
20 tokio_console.view.styles13
21 console_subscriber.record21
22 console_subscriber.stats121415
23 tokio_console.config2
24 tokio_console.view.help12
25 console_subscriber.aggregator.id_data11
26 tokio_console.state.async_ops4423211
27 tokio_console.state.histogram112
28 tokio_console.view.table2121
29 tokio_console.view.task1111
30 console_subscriber.aggregator11211912725
31 tokio_console.state.resources1415123111
32 tokio_console.state.tasks226122111
33 tokio_console.view11111
34 tokio_console.view.async_ops1112
35 tokio_console.view.resource111111
36 tokio_console.view.resources112
37 tokio_console.view.tasks112
38 console_subscriber311123
39 tokio_console.state1514731111
40 console_subscriber.visitors211211
Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself
…protobuf.timestamp_pb….console.common.field…nsole.common.metadata…le.tasks.task_detailstokio_console.intern…app.src.gen.common_pb…mon.register_metadata…kio.console.resources…s.tokio.console.tasks….src.gen.async_ops_pb…io.console.instrument….src.gen.resources_pb….app.src.gen.tasks_pb….tokio.console.common…src.gen.instrument_pb…kio.console.async_ops…ole.trace.trace_event…_subscriber.attribute…o_console.state.store…o_console.view.styles…ole_subscriber.record…sole_subscriber.statstokio_console.config…kio_console.view.help…er.aggregator.id_data…nsole.state.async_ops…nsole.state.histogram…io_console.view.table…kio_console.view.task…subscriber.aggregator…nsole.state.resources…o_console.state.taskstokio_console.view…onsole.view.async_ops…console.view.resource…onsole.view.resources…io_console.view.tasksconsole_subscribertokio_console.state…e_subscriber.visitors…protobuf.timestamp_pb1….console.common.field2…nsole.common.metadata3…le.tasks.task_details4tokio_console.intern5…app.src.gen.common_pb6…mon.register_metadata7…kio.console.resources8…s.tokio.console.tasks9….src.gen.async_ops_pb10…io.console.instrument11….src.gen.resources_pb12….app.src.gen.tasks_pb13….tokio.console.common14…src.gen.instrument_pb15…kio.console.async_ops16…ole.trace.trace_event17…_subscriber.attribute18…o_console.state.store19…o_console.view.styles20…ole_subscriber.record21…sole_subscriber.stats22tokio_console.config23…kio_console.view.help24…er.aggregator.id_data25…nsole.state.async_ops26…nsole.state.histogram27…io_console.view.table28…kio_console.view.task29…subscriber.aggregator30…nsole.state.resources31…o_console.state.tasks32tokio_console.view33…onsole.view.async_ops34…console.view.resource35…onsole.view.resources36…io_console.view.tasks37console_subscriber38tokio_console.state39…e_subscriber.visitors402216171411211512512111211153124411321121415212114423211112212111111121191272514151231112261221111111111121111111121123111231514731111211211+27 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 89% · Exemplary ·

The Good
D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 9.0 D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 8.1 D3 · Rust God Classes 7.0 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.5 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 9.5

At a glance — Architecture · 97% · Exemplary ·

The Good
D5 · Rust Coupling 10.0 D6 · Rust Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.2 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0
The Ugly
D22 · Rust Internal API Consistency 3.0

At a glance — Maturity · 58% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2 ·

The Good
D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · Rust Bus Factor 10.0 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 9.0 D21 · Rust Naming Consistency 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.3 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Ugly
D20 · Rust ADR Quality 0.0 D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 2.8 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 64% · Strong ·

The Good
D9 · Rust Test Distribution 9.7 D11 · Rust Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · Rust Dependency Hygiene 8.5 D13 · Rust Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · Rust License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 10.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 8.0
The Bad
P2 · Repo Observability 6.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0
The Ugly
P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 4.0

At a glance — Security · 76% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

The Good
D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · Rust Dependency Vulnerabilities 9.4 D37 · Rust Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 10.0 D43 · Rust Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Rust Platform End-of-Life 10.0 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 8.0
The Ugly
D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 2.0 D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good
PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A03:2021 — Injection54High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components3Medium

Roadmap

Begin by establishing a centralized repository for architecture decisions, ensuring each significant choice is documented with its context and consequences to fill the current gap in design records. Simultaneously, extend structured logging across all runnable modules to guarantee full observability and diagnosability in production environments. To secure the supply chain, enable automated dependency review tools and stamp a consistent version identifier in your build manifests to ensure every release is traceable and auditable.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+7.8 ptsLowADR Quality
Resolve the 2 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with mod.rs, stats.rs.+5.3 ptsLowKnowledge Freshness
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).+8.3 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Resolve the 1 Concentrated knowledge decay finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.+3.2 ptsLowKnowledge Freshness
Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.+5.7 ptsMediumObservability
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.+5.7 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling
Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.+5.7 ptsMediumRelease Hygiene
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.+5.5 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 32 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 3% slop · 28% mixed · 69% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED2.3SlopStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED3.0MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED4.4MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED4.4MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
console-subscriber/src/aggregator/mod.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
console-subscriber/src/lib.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tokio-console/src/view/tasks.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tokio-console/src/view/task.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
REDACTED6.3MixedDependency Vulnerabilities: Medium advisory (unsound): REDACTED
tokio-console/src/view/async_ops.rs7.1Near-cleanGod Classes: MethodTooLong: AsyncOpsTable.render
tokio-console/src/main.rs7.2Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: tokio_console::main (cyclomatic 24)
tokio-console/src/state/tasks.rs7.2Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: TasksState::update_tasks (cyclomatic 21)
tokio-console/src/state/async_ops.rs7.2Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2)
console-subscriber/src/stats.rs7.3Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
console-subscriber/src/record.rs7.3Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tokio-console/src/state/mod.rs7.3Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
console-subscriber/src/visitors.rs7.4Near-cleanCode Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)
tokio-console/src/view/mini_histogram.rs7.8Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: MiniHistogram::render_bars (cyclomatic 17)
tokio-console/src/view/mod.rs7.8Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: View::update_input (cyclomatic 17)

How the grades work

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

Critical — 53

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 — 82

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 — 43

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

Could not be resolved — 35

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. 40 of 44 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 1.0 — 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 — 44 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D19D20D21D22D26D28D29D30D34D35D36D37D43D44AX10AX3AX4AX9M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6PF3S1

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
  1. 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, 133 of 178 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.)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivySecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0f190-8c62-7149-9d13-cebec2662959.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

  • D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.rs) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
  • C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
  • C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
  • C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
  • ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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.
  • X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript was found in this repository, 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.
  • 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.

Repo exclusion declarations: 2 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.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

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

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.0 / 10Stronggated by 6 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

6 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was tokio_console::main at 24. A further 1 function(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being Styles::time_units at 24 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: tokio-console/src/view/styles.rs (Styles::time_units at 24). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

tokio_console::main (cyclomatic 24)tokio-console/src/main.rs:30
TasksState::update_tasks (cyclomatic 21)tokio-console/src/state/tasks.rs:151
MiniHistogram::render_bars (cyclomatic 17)tokio-console/src/view/mini_histogram.rs:124
View::update_input (cyclomatic 17)tokio-console/src/view/mod.rs:110
Aggregator::run (cyclomatic 16)console-subscriber/src/aggregator/mod.rs:174

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 tokio_console finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with main.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 TasksState finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with tasks.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 MiniHistogram finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with mini_histogram.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

10 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ConsoleLayer::on_event at 42.

ConsoleLayer::on_event (cognitive 42) · ×2console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:687
tokio_console::main (cognitive 41) · ×2tokio-console/src/main.rs:30
View::update_input (cognitive 30)tokio-console/src/view/mod.rs:110
Connection::connect (cognitive 22)tokio-console/src/conn.rs:87
Aggregator::run (cognitive 21)console-subscriber/src/aggregator/mod.rs:174

+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 ConsoleLayer finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with lib.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 tokio_console finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with main.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 View finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with mod.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. 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.

D3 · God Classes7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

10 god class(es) detected.

MethodTooLong: TasksTable.render · ×5tokio-console/src/view/tasks.rs:48
FileTooLong: src/lib.rs · ×2console-subscriber/src/lib.rs
FunctionTooLong: tokio_console::maintokio-console/src/main.rs:30
TooManyMethods: Tasktokio-console/src/state/tasks.rs:78
ClassTooLong: ConsoleLayerconsole-subscriber/src/lib.rs:66

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with tasks.rs (2), task.rs, async_ops.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with lib.rs, config.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with main.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. 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.

D4 · Code Duplication9.5 / 10Stronggated by 15 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

13 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.

Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 67 shared lines)tokio-console/src/view/async_ops.rs:66
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)console-subscriber/src/visitors.rs:469
Duplicated block (34–35 lines × 3)tokio-console/src/view/async_ops.rs:158
Duplicated block (18–27 lines × 2)tokio-console/src/view/task.rs:91
Duplicated block (22–25 lines × 2)tokio-console/src/view/resources.rs:185

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 67 shared lines) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with async_ops.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with visitors.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (34–35 lines × 3) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with async_ops.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

4 production modules (Cargo), 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, with abstractness counted on 3 of the 4 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, or have no source directory of their own).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

0 of 49 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

D9 · Test Distribution9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

25 test methods: 6 unit, 19 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 25 `#[test]` function(s) across 9 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 6 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.

Inverted test pyramid

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). Rust (repository root, 9 test files): measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

30 outdated, 0 yanked direct Cargo dependencies. Only DIRECT edges are graded: a transitive crate cannot be moved past what its parent's requirement admits, so reporting one would be advice its owner cannot take. A newer release is reported only where this repository's OWN requirement already admits it, so the remedy is `cargo update` and never a manifest edit — which means a release outside the declared range is deliberately NOT charged, because a written-down constraint is a decision rather than a defect. Note that a bare requirement is a CARET, and for a 0.x crate its ceiling is the minor. Whether any crate is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — crates.io publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED there.

Outdated: cfg-if · ×30

What to do

  1. Improve Dependency Hygiene — currently 8.5/10. — 30 outdated, 0 yanked direct Cargo dependencies. Only DIRECT edges are graded: a transitive crate cannot be moved past what its parent's requirement admits, so reporting one would be advice its owner cannot take. A newer release is reported only where this repository's OWN requirement already admits it, so the remedy is `cargo update` and never a manifest edit — which means a release outside the declared range is deliberately NOT charged, because a written-down constraint is a decision rather than a defect. Note that a bare requirement is a CARET, and for a 0.x crate its ceiling is the minor. Whether any crate is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — crates.io publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED there.

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

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 of 274 shipped crate(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from crates.io over the crates a consumer compiles — this repository's REDACTED closed over its manifests' `[dependencies]` and `[build-dependencies]`. Crates it asks for ONLY under `[dev-dependencies]` are excluded: they are not compiled by anything that depends on this repository.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author. Counted over 35 of the 48 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt9.5 / 10Stronggated by 31 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

31 deducted task-comment markers across 11552 LoC (0.2/KLoC) → score 9.5. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×25console-subscriber/src/stats.rs:239
XxxComment · ×4console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:503
FixmeComment · ×2console-subscriber/tests/support/subscriber.rs:334

What to do

  1. Resolve the 25 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with lib.rs (7), mod.rs (5), stats.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (25 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 4 XxxComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with lib.rs (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 2 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with subscriber.rs, resources.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  4. 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.

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README and the four console-api/README.md files are excellent at describing what each project is for (TurboWish/tokio-console as a diagnostics tool with wire format, instrumentation, consumers, gRPC clients) and showing installation/build status badges plus links to docs sites. The internal-focused jargon ('wire protocol', 'gRPC', 'protobuf') is consistent across the visible documents; no missing-overview or missing-installation findings are present because each document under its own heading (e.g. 'what's all this, then?') gives an overview and the installation for that directory. There is a single unstructured element in the wire-format section of console-api/README.md ('the [`console-api`] crate contains generated code...'), but it is not clipped and every named section exists per the outline, so no missing-architecture-docs or unstructured findings apply.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

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.

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

2 API inconsistencies across 7 exposed types.

Redundant and confusing construction paths. `ConsoleLayer.new()` returns a `(ConsoleLayer, Server)` tuple, which duplicates the return type of `Builder.build()`. Furthermore, `ConsoleLayer.builder()` returns a `Builder`, implying one can construct a `ConsoleLayer` via the builder pattern, but `ConsoleLayer` also has a direct constructor `new()`. This creates three different ways to achieve the same result (getting a ConsoleLayer and Server), with unclear precedence or semantic difference between `new` and `build`.
Inconsistent and confusing method naming/signatures. `serve_with` and `serve_with_grpc_web` take a `builder: Server` as an argument, which is semantically incorrect (a server does not take another server as a builder). It is likely these methods are meant to configure the server before serving, but the signature suggests passing a server instance. Additionally, having `serve`, `serve_with`, and `serve_with_grpc_web` on the same type creates ambiguity about which one to use and what the 'with' variants actually do differently if not via the confusingly named parameter.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Redundant and confusing construction paths. `ConsoleLayer.new()` returns… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Inconsistent and confusing method naming/signatures. `serve_with` and… 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.

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 of 4 build units (Cargo) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

54 finding(s): 0 critical, 53 high, 1 medium, 0 low. 44 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 2 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 6 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  3. No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 44 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (44 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities9.4 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Medium vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Medium advisory (unsound) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

D34 · Knowledge Freshness2.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

25 of 35 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is console-subscriber/src/aggregator/mod.rs. Counted over 35 of the 48 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Most significant orphaned file · ×2console-subscriber/src/aggregator/mod.rs
Concentrated knowledge decay

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with mod.rs, stats.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Concentrated knowledge decay finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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.

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

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.

Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.

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

A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md.

D43 · Malicious Dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

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

No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. 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.
AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M1 · Documentation (README)8.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 1 of 5 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 0.4 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
  • Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

P2 · Observability6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 2/3 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `xtask`.

What to do

  • Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry with tracing-opentelemetry) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your axum/actix router) for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.

What to do

  • Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

S1 · Web-Security Posture8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Only what this repository's own non-C# files could be read for was assessed — and because this repository commits the configuration that serves its own HTTP surface, that configuration could be read in full for the security response headers it sets. 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.

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. Deterministic.

  • No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. This is reported because `netlify.toml` configures this repository's static hosting, including its response headers, so the configuration that would carry these headers is in this repository and was read in full. (−2.0 on this card.) — netlify.toml:1

What to do

  • Set security response headers on the surface this repository serves: an `add_header` directive per header in the nginx/Caddy/Apache config, a `_headers` / `vercel.json` / `netlify.toml` entry for a static host, or `helmet()` in the HTTP server. `Content-Security-Policy` is the one that pays for itself first — it is what contains an injected script once one reaches the page — followed by `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff` and a frame policy (`X-Frame-Options: DENY`, or CSP `frame-ancestors`). Where the app is served from a build container, the header configuration belongs in the image beside the built assets, so it ships with them rather than depending on where it lands.

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health89%ExemplarySolid.
Architecture97%ExemplarySolid.
Maturity58%Adequate — gated by D34, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness64%StrongSolid.
Security76%Adequate — gated by D29, D36Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance100%ExemplaryStrongest area.
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 — 73 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's JavaScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's; Rust with no dependency-injection crate has no container to hand one lifetime's instance to another — every value is owned by the code that builds it, and the borrow checker rejects a longer-lived value keeping a borrow of a shorter-lived one; this repository's TypeScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: Rust's compiler refuses unsynchronised shared mutation — a value shared across threads must be Sync — so the race this check looks for cannot be written. TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
  • AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the dev server did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time — no runtime evidence This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
  • C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • D10 Test Quality — ~1763 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • 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.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
  • 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 included — suite not readable by the collector
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (10 value object(s))
  • ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
  • ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • 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 — no outbound HTTP usage detected — no HTTP client call or construction in the Rust source (service entry point: console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:926 (tonic::transport::Server))
  • 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 — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `#[bench]`, criterion's `bench_function`/`bench_with_input`, `#[divan::bench]` or `#[library_benchmark]` in any `.rs` file, or criterion, divan, iai or a `[[bench]]` target in a Cargo.toml, 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: Rust spells out every heap allocation and makes borrowed slices (&[T], &str) its ordinary parameter types, so the allocation-aware style this card rewards elsewhere is the language's baseline rather than a rung to climb.
  • 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
  • X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — 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
  • 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.

Critical — 53 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • + 19 more in this group — see findings.md.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
Serious — 82 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×25
  • TodoComment console-subscriber/src/stats.rs:239 — // TODO(eliza): this could maybe panic in debug mode... — 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 console-subscriber/src/stats.rs:435 — // TODO(eliza): this could maybe panic in debug mode... — 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 console-subscriber/src/record.rs:19 — // TODO(eliza): terminate and flush when dropping... — 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 console-subscriber/src/record.rs:103 — // TODO: what to do if file 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 console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:90 — /// TODO: Take some time to determine more reasonable numbers — 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 console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:95 — /// TODO: Take some time to determine more reasonable numbers — 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 console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:100 — /// TODO: Take some time to determine more reasonable numbers — 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 console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:105 — /// TODO: Take some time to determine more reasonable numbers — 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 console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:110 — /// TODO: Take some time to determine more reasonable numbers — 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 console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:115 — /// TODO: Take some time to determine more reasonable numbers — 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 console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:760 — // TODO: JSON recorder doesn't care about poll ops. — 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 console-subscriber/src/aggregator/shrink.rs:148 — // TODO(eliza): this number was chosen totally arbitrarily; it's the minimum — 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 console-subscriber/src/aggregator/mod.rs:487 — // TODO: parents — 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 console-subscriber/src/aggregator/mod.rs:658 — // TODO: more kinds of tasks... — 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 console-subscriber/src/aggregator/mod.rs:661 — // TODO: implement parents nicely — 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 tokio-console/src/warnings.rs:48 — // TODO(eliza): it would be nice if we had separate plural and singular — 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 tokio-console/src/input.rs:1 — // TODO(eliza): support Ratatui backends other than crossterm? — 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 tokio-console/src/state/store.rs:107 — // TODO(eliza): remove from `ids` if it's no longer in `store`? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tokio-console/src/state/mod.rs:56 — //TODO: add more metadata as needed — 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 tokio-console/src/state/mod.rs:477 — // TODO(eliza): *maybe* this should compare so that larger units are — 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 tokio-console/src/view/tasks.rs:206 — // TODO(eliza): it would be nice to handle singular vs plural... — 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 tokio-console/src/view/task.rs:65 — // TODO(eliza): it would be nice to handle singular vs plural... — 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 tokio-console/src/view/task.rs:35 — // TODO :D — 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 tokio-console/src/view/table.rs:65 — // TODO(eliza): mouse input would be cool... — 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 tokio-console/src/view/styles.rs:342 — // TODO(eliza): configure an ascii-art border set 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.
D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×5
  • MethodTooLong: TasksTable.render tokio-console/src/view/tasks.rs:48 — MethodTooLong — render runs 166 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 66 over it, 1.66× 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: TaskView.render tokio-console/src/view/task.rs:38 — MethodTooLong — render runs 160 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 60 over it, 1.60× 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: AsyncOpsTable.render tokio-console/src/view/async_ops.rs:59 — MethodTooLong — render runs 125 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 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: ResourcesTable.render tokio-console/src/view/resources.rs:53 — MethodTooLong — render runs 118 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 18 over it, 1.18× 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: TasksState.update_tasks tokio-console/src/state/tasks.rs:151 — MethodTooLong — update_tasks runs 105 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 5 over it, 1.05× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
D17 · Explicit Debt · XxxComment · ×4
  • XxxComment console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:503 — // XXX(eliza): no span exists for a resource ID, we should maybe — 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.
  • XxxComment console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:511 — // XXX(eliza): a resource span was not a resource??? this is a bug — 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.
  • XxxComment console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:693 — // XXX (eliza): ew... — 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.
  • XxxComment console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:885 — // XXX(eliza): why is `SocketAddr::new` not `const`??? — 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.
D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×2
  • FixmeComment console-subscriber/tests/support/subscriber.rs:334 — // FIXME(hds): We should probably create an error or a warning if multiple tasks match. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • FixmeComment tokio-console/src/state/resources.rs:104 — // FIXME - we are taking only the key of the first attribute as sorting key here. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ConsoleLayer · ×2
  • ConsoleLayer::on_event (cognitive 42) console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:687 — ConsoleLayer::on_event has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (42 pts) (nesting depth added 27). 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.
  • ConsoleLayer::on_new_span (cognitive 19) console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:577 — ConsoleLayer::on_new_span has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (19 pts) (nesting depth added 10). 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · tokio_console · ×2
  • tokio_console::main (cognitive 41) tokio-console/src/main.rs:30 — tokio_console::main has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (24 pts), match/switch 7 (16 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
  • tokio_console::watch_details_stream (cognitive 18) tokio-console/src/main.rs:212 — tokio_console::watch_details_stream has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 3 (9 pts), if/else 3 (8 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). 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.
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×2
  • FileTooLong: src/lib.rs console-subscriber/src/lib.rs — FileTooLong — 681 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 181 over it, 1.36× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/config.rs tokio-console/src/config.rs — FileTooLong — 558 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 58 over it, 1.12× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · tokio_console · ×1
  • tokio_console::main (cyclomatic 24) tokio-console/src/main.rs:30 — tokio_console::main has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TasksState · ×1
  • TasksState::update_tasks (cyclomatic 21) tokio-console/src/state/tasks.rs:151 — TasksState::update_tasks has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MiniHistogram · ×1
  • MiniHistogram::render_bars (cyclomatic 17) tokio-console/src/view/mini_histogram.rs:124 — MiniHistogram::render_bars has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · View · ×1
  • View::update_input (cyclomatic 17) tokio-console/src/view/mod.rs:110 — View::update_input 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Aggregator · ×1
  • Aggregator::run (cyclomatic 16) console-subscriber/src/aggregator/mod.rs:174 — Aggregator::run has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ConsoleLayer · ×1
  • ConsoleLayer::on_event (cyclomatic 16) console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:687 — ConsoleLayer::on_event has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · View · ×1
  • View::update_input (cognitive 30) tokio-console/src/view/mod.rs:110 — View::update_input has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (21 pts), match/switch 5 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Connection · ×1
  • Connection::connect (cognitive 22) tokio-console/src/conn.rs:87 — Connection::connect has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Aggregator · ×1
  • Aggregator::run (cognitive 21) console-subscriber/src/aggregator/mod.rs:174 — Aggregator::run has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 4 (11 pts), if/else 3 (6 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TasksState · ×1
  • TasksState::update_tasks (cognitive 21) tokio-console/src/state/tasks.rs:151 — TasksState::update_tasks has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 9 (13 pts), if/else 3 (6 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MiniHistogram · ×1
  • MiniHistogram::render_bars (cognitive 20) tokio-console/src/view/mini_histogram.rs:124 — MiniHistogram::render_bars has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (12 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TasksTable · ×1
  • TasksTable::render (cognitive 18) tokio-console/src/view/tasks.rs:48 — TasksTable::render has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (17 pts), match/switch 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.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · Redundant and confusing construction paths. `ConsoleLayer.new()` returns a `(ConsoleLayer, Server)` tuple, which duplicates the return type of `Builder.build()`. Furthermore, `ConsoleLayer.builder()` returns a `Builder`, implying one can construct a `ConsoleLayer` via the builder pattern, but `ConsoleLayer` also has a direct constructor `new()`. This creates three different ways to achieve the same result (getting a ConsoleLayer and Server), with unclear precedence or semantic difference between `new` and `build`. · ×1
  • Redundant and confusing construction paths. `ConsoleLayer.new()` returns a `(ConsoleLayer, Server)` tuple, which duplicates the return type of `Builder.build()`. Furthermore, `ConsoleLayer.builder()` returns a `Builder`, implying one can construct a `ConsoleLayer` via the builder pattern, but `ConsoleLayer` also has a direct constructor `new()`. This creates three different ways to achieve the same result (getting a ConsoleLayer and Server), with unclear precedence or semantic difference between `new` and `build`. — Remove `ConsoleLayer.new()` and `ConsoleLayer.builder()`. Standardize on the Builder pattern: users should call `Builder.build()` to get `(ConsoleLayer, Server)`. If `ConsoleLayer` needs to be created without a server, it should be a separate type or the API should be restructured to clearly separate the layer creation from the server creation. (signatures: Builder.build(): (ConsoleLayer, Server) | ConsoleLayer.new(): (Self, Server) | ConsoleLayer.builder(): Builder)
D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent and confusing method naming/signatures. `serve_with` and `serve_with_grpc_web` take a `builder · ×1
  • Inconsistent and confusing method naming/signatures. `serve_with` and `serve_with_grpc_web` take a `builder: Server` as an argument, which is semantically incorrect (a server does not take another server as a builder). It is likely these methods are meant to configure the server before serving, but the signature suggests passing a server instance. Additionally, having `serve`, `serve_with`, and `serve_with_grpc_web` on the same type creates ambiguity about which one to use and what the 'with' variants actually do differently if not via the confusingly named parameter. — Rename `serve_with` and `serve_with_grpc_web` to clearly indicate they are configuration or startup methods with different parameters (e.g., `serve_with_config` or remove them if configuration should happen via `Builder`). Fix the parameter type to be a configuration struct or remove the parameter if the server is already configured. Ensure only one primary `serve` method exists, or clearly distinguish variants by distinct, non-redundant names. (signatures: Server.serve(): Result | Server.serve_with(builder: Server): Result | Server.serve_with_grpc_web(builder: Server): Result)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×1
  • FunctionTooLong: tokio_console::main tokio-console/src/main.rs:30 — FunctionTooLong — tokio_console::main runs 120 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 20 over it, 1.20× 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.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×1
  • TooManyMethods: Task tokio-console/src/state/tasks.rs:78 — 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.
D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×1
  • ClassTooLong: ConsoleLayer console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:66 — ClassTooLong — 402 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 14 methods, 5 blocks, lines 66-882. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 2 over it, 1.01× 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.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unsound) · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 67 shared lines) · ×1
  • Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 67 shared lines) tokio-console/src/view/async_ops.rs:66 — tokio-console/src/view/async_ops.rs:66-222 | tokio-console/src/view/resources.rs:60-211 | tokio-console/src/view/tasks.rs:55-285 — These 3 members are variants of one another: a block of 67 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 3 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 3 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) console-subscriber/src/visitors.rs:469 — console-subscriber/src/visitors.rs:469-479 | console-subscriber/src/visitors.rs:481-491 | console-subscriber/src/visitors.rs:493-503 | console-subscriber/src/visitors.rs:505-515 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (34–35 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (34–35 lines × 3) tokio-console/src/view/async_ops.rs:158 — tokio-console/src/view/async_ops.rs:158-192 | tokio-console/src/view/resources.rs:128-162 | tokio-console/src/view/tasks.rs:148-181 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio-console/src/view/async_ops.rs` and `tokio-console/src/view/resources.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 70 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18–27 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (18–27 lines × 2) tokio-console/src/view/task.rs:91 — tokio-console/src/view/task.rs:91-108 | tokio-console/src/view/task.rs:111-137 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22–25 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (22–25 lines × 2) tokio-console/src/view/resources.rs:185 — tokio-console/src/view/resources.rs:185-206 | tokio-console/src/view/tasks.rs:249-273 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio-console/src/view/resources.rs` and `tokio-console/src/view/tasks.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 95 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20–23 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (20–23 lines × 3) tokio-console/src/view/async_ops.rs:198 — tokio-console/src/view/async_ops.rs:198-219 | tokio-console/src/view/resources.rs:186-205 | tokio-console/src/view/tasks.rs:250-272 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio-console/src/view/async_ops.rs` and `tokio-console/src/view/resources.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 70 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:950 — console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:950-970 | console-subscriber/src/lib.rs:1071-1091 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) tokio-console/src/state/async_ops.rs:289 — tokio-console/src/state/async_ops.rs:289-302 | tokio-console/src/state/resources.rs:351-363 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) tokio-console/src/view/async_ops.rs:114 — tokio-console/src/view/async_ops.rs:114-125 | tokio-console/src/view/resources.rs:87-98 | tokio-console/src/view/tasks.rs:91-102 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio-console/src/view/async_ops.rs` and `tokio-console/src/view/resources.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 70 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) console-subscriber/src/attribute.rs:74 — console-subscriber/src/attribute.rs:74-84 | console-subscriber/src/attribute.rs:87-97 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) console-subscriber/src/visitors.rs:470 — console-subscriber/src/visitors.rs:470-479 | console-subscriber/src/visitors.rs:482-491 | console-subscriber/src/visitors.rs:494-503 | console-subscriber/src/visitors.rs:506-515 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) console-subscriber/src/visitors.rs:179 — console-subscriber/src/visitors.rs:179-188 | console-subscriber/src/visitors.rs:261-270 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) tokio-console/src/state/async_ops.rs:307 — tokio-console/src/state/async_ops.rs:307-311 | tokio-console/src/state/tasks.rs:556-560 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) tokio-console/src/state/async_ops.rs:244 — tokio-console/src/state/async_ops.rs:244-249 | tokio-console/src/state/tasks.rs:411-416 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) tokio-console/src/state/async_ops.rs:304 — tokio-console/src/state/async_ops.rs:304-310 | tokio-console/src/state/resources.rs:366-371 | tokio-console/src/state/tasks.rs:553-559 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Minor — 13 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Most significant orphaned file · ×2
  • Most significant orphaned file console-subscriber/src/aggregator/mod.rs — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
  • Most significant orphaned file console-subscriber/src/stats.rs — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Concentrated knowledge decay · ×1
  • Concentrated knowledge decay — 25 of 35 significant files have no living knowledge, while the repository is still being changed at a low rate (2 commit(s) in the last 90 days) — so this is one repo-wide knowledge-decay state, not 25 separate risks. Counted over 35 of the 48 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. The code moved on without the people who understood these files: document them or schedule a read-through before the next change lands in them.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D9 · Test Distribution · Inverted test pyramid · ×1
  • Inverted test pyramid — Only 24 % of tests are unit tests (6 unit vs 19 integration, 0 BDD); a broader unit base gives faster, more localised feedback.
M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1
  • No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
M2 · Architecture documentation · No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
  • No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1
  • Logging is not universal — Only 2/3 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `xtask`.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No release approval gate · ×1
  • No release approval gate — The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.
S1 · Web-Security Posture · No security response headers detected · ×1
  • No security response headers detected netlify.toml:1 — No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. This is reported because `netlify.toml` configures this repository's static hosting, including its response headers, so the configuration that would carry these headers is in this repository and was read in full. (−2.0 on this card.)
Minor — 30 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×30
  • Outdated: cfg-if — `cfg-if` is locked at 1.0.3 but 1.0.5 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0.1"` requirement declared in tokio-console/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p cfg-if` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: clap — `clap` is locked at 4.5.48 but 4.6.7 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"4.5.4"` requirement declared in tokio-console/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p clap` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: clap_complete — `clap_complete` is locked at 4.5.58 but 4.6.11 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"4.5.2"` requirement declared in tokio-console/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p clap_complete` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: crossbeam-channel — `crossbeam-channel` is locked at 0.5.15 but 0.5.17 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.5"` requirement declared in console-subscriber/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p crossbeam-channel` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: crossbeam-utils — `crossbeam-utils` is locked at 0.8.21 but 0.8.23 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.8.7"` requirement declared in console-subscriber/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p crossbeam-utils` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: futures — `futures` is locked at 0.3.31 but 0.3.34 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.3"` requirement declared in tokio-console/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p futures` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: futures-core — `futures-core` is locked at 0.3.31 but 0.3.34 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.3.31"` requirement declared in console-api/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p futures-core` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: futures-task — `futures-task` is locked at 0.3.31 but 0.3.34 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.3.31"` requirement declared in console-subscriber/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p futures-task` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: h2 — `h2` is locked at 0.4.12 but 0.4.19 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.4.6"` requirement declared in tokio-console/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p h2` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: hdrhistogram — `hdrhistogram` is locked at 7.5.4 but 7.6.0 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"7.4.0"` requirement declared in console-subscriber/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p hdrhistogram` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: humantime — `humantime` is locked at 2.3.0 but 2.4.0 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"2.1.0"` requirement declared in console-subscriber/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p humantime` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: hyper-util — `hyper-util` is locked at 0.1.17 but 0.1.21 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.1.6"` requirement declared in console-subscriber/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p hyper-util` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: once_cell — `once_cell` is locked at 1.21.3 but 1.21.4 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.17.1"` requirement declared in tokio-console/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p once_cell` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: parking_lot — `parking_lot` is locked at 0.12.4 but 0.12.5 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.12.1"` requirement declared in console-subscriber/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p parking_lot` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: prost — `prost` is locked at 0.14.1 but 0.14.4 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.14.1"` requirement declared in console-api/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p prost` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: prost-types — `prost-types` is locked at 0.14.1 but 0.14.4 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.14.1"` requirement declared in console-api/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p prost-types` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: regex — `regex` is locked at 1.11.3 but 1.13.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.11"` requirement declared in tokio-console/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p regex` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: serde — `serde` is locked at 1.0.228 but 1.0.229 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0.220"` requirement declared in console-subscriber/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p serde` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: serde_json — `serde_json` is locked at 1.0.145 but 1.0.151 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1"` requirement declared in console-subscriber/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p serde_json` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: thread_local — `thread_local` is locked at 1.1.9 but 1.1.10 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.1.4"` requirement declared in console-subscriber/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p thread_local` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: tokio — `tokio` is locked at 1.47.1 but 1.53.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.47.1"` requirement declared in console-subscriber/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tokio` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: tokio-stream — `tokio-stream` is locked at 0.1.17 but 0.1.19 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.1.16"` requirement declared in console-subscriber/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tokio-stream` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: tonic — `tonic` is locked at 0.14.2 but 0.14.6 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.14.2"` requirement declared in console-api/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tonic` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: tonic-prost — `tonic-prost` is locked at 0.14.2 but 0.14.6 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.14.2"` requirement declared in console-api/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tonic-prost` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: tonic-prost-build — `tonic-prost-build` is locked at 0.14.2 but 0.14.6 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.14.2"` requirement declared in xtask/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tonic-prost-build` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • + 5 more in this group — see findings.md.

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.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-6ef8d72699ff4897b1522da07e306ff1/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-6ef8d72699ff4897b1522da07e306ff1/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .54artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update3artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.0—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciestrivy—trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update0artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a0f190-8c62-7149-9d13-cebec2662959 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 53 · Warnings: 82 · Recommendations: 13 · Info: 30 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 30-09-2026 @ 09:06 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.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md