Public report of tokio-rs/tokio, published 25 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive report Measured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey → Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 25 October 2026, 22:35 UTC · Survey ID cd_4d7290bfbb764704a006c4ef6b3432e5

tokio-rs/tokio

Measured 25 October 2026, 22:34 UTC, at code version 6e3d753

No regression since the last survey

A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.

CAI score 70out of 100 Strong
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Up 1 since the last survey

The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.

Code Health 95 Exemplary Performance 94 Exemplary Architecture 91 Adequate Production Readiness 79 Strong Security and Compliance 71 Adequate Maturity 60 Adequate

A large codebase: 114,445 lines of product code in 5 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 1.5 person-years · Weakest lens: Maturity, 60

Findings by how serious they are

187 critical 218 serious 44 minor

23 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
25 October 2026, 22:34 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.

The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸

49of 49 dimensions measured by tools.
434of 449 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 15 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
49dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 114,445 lines of product code in 5 projects.
Chapters

Executive summary

tokio-rs/tokio meets our standard for production, though we found no recorded design decisions and no architecture document or diagram. It scores 70 out of 100 and is rated Strong, and 186 of its 187 critical findings are security problems in the build pipeline and in its automatic dependency updates.

Maturity, at 60, is the weakest lens and counts most in the score. The best first step is recording design decisions, worth about 10 points. Raising Maturity to 70 would lift the score to about 75.

183 pipeline tools are referenced by a changeable name, so the build pipeline can be tampered with. One automatic update takes new releases before a bad one can be spotted, and one pipeline step installs packages that can change without warning. Pinning each tool to an exact version, setting a waiting period for automatic updates and pinning what the pipeline installs would close these risks. The pipeline step that runs a download without checking it needs each download checked against a known checksum first. The set of files in separate parts that keep changing together needs that dependency made explicit.

The product code is 114,445 lines, about €220,000 to rebuild.

Code Health 95 ★ Exemplary Architecture 91 Adequate, capped by Project Cohesion Maturity 60 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 79 Strong Security and Compliance 71 Adequate, capped by Supply-chain Provenance & Signing Performance 94 ★ Exemplary

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

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Maturity 60 · counts for 46%Security and Compliance 71 · counts for 25%Production Readiness 79 · counts for 14%Architecture 91 · counts for 8%Performance 94 · counts for 4%Code Health 95 · counts for 2%

If Maturity rose from 60 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 70 to about 75.

Code composition: what the lines of code are
Product code 69%Tests 31%
New since the last survey: 7 findings

These 7 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 11 October 2026.

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

Fixed since the last survey: 14 findings

These 14 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 11 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) tokio-util/src/util/memchr.rs
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) tokio/src/runtime/task/waker.rs
  • Explicit Debt · TodoComment tokio-util/src/util/memchr.rs
  • Explicit Debt · TodoComment tokio/src/util/memchr.rs
  • Explicit Debt · TodoComment tokio-util/src/util/memchr.rs
  • Explicit Debt · TodoComment tokio/src/util/memchr.rs
  • Explicit Debt · TodoComment tokio/src/runtime/task/waker.rs
  • Explicit Debt · TodoComment tokio/src/runtime/task/waker.rs
  • Explicit Debt · TodoComment tokio/src/runtime/task/waker.rs
  • Explicit Debt · TodoComment tokio/src/runtime/task/raw.rs
  • Explicit Debt · TodoComment tokio/src/runtime/task/core.rs
  • Explicit Debt · TodoComment tokio/src/util/linked_list.rs
  • Explicit Debt · TodoComment tokio/src/runtime/task/core.rs
  • Explicit Debt · TodoComment tokio/src/sync/mpsc/list.rs
Rebuild cost: about €220,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild€72,000 to €360,000, for 1,205 to 3,824 hours of work, about 1.5 person-years for 1 to 3 engineers
Difficulty of the problemStandard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor×1.0 at a score of 70. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
SizeLarge: 114,445 lines of product code

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

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 10 points · Low effort · ADR Quality
2
Record your significant design decisions.
Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Raises the score by about 9 points · Medium effort · Architecture documentation
3
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.
Raises the score by about 2 points · Low effort · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

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

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €220,000 to build again, about 1.5 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Maturity, at 60 (Adequate). Maturity is about how well the project explains and looks after itself, which decides whether a new developer, or a new supplier, can take over. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Maturity also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Maturity grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Maturity actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 10 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 ADR Quality findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

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 tokio tokio tokio-macros tokio-macros tokio->tokio-macros tokio-stream tokio-stream tokio-stream->tokio tokio-util tokio-util tokio-stream->tokio-util tokio-test tokio-test tokio-test->tokio tokio-test->tokio-stream tokio-util->tokio

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

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

420 modules, with 1039 dependencies between them. 3 loops run through 69 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 380 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →1 tokio.io.interest2 tokio.io.read_buf3 tokio.loom.std.parking_lot4 tokio.loom.std.unsafe_cell5 tokio.runtime.id6 tokio.time.instant7 tokio_stream.stream_ext8 tokio.loom.std.atomic_usize9 tokio.time.error10 tokio.util.linked_list11 tokio.runtime.task12 tokio.runtime.time.wheel13 tokio.runtime.driver14 tokio.runtime.builder15 tokio.runtime.context16 tokio.io.async_read17 tokio.io.async_write18 tokio.fs.file19 tokio.io.async_buf_read20 tokio.io.util.sink21 tokio.net.unix.stream22 tokio.net.unix.pipe23 tokio.runtime.driver.op24 tokio.runtime.io.driver25 tokio_test.io26 tokio.process.windows27 tokio.runtime.blocking.pool28 tokio.runtime.io.scheduled_io29 tokio.runtime.dump30 tokio.runtime.task.list31 tokio.sync.batch_semaphore32 tokio.sync.notify33 tokio.runtime.scheduler.current_thread34 tokio.runtime.scheduler.multi_thread.worker35 tokio.runtime.task.core36 tokio.runtime.task.raw37 tokio.blocking38 tokio.runtime.runtime39 tokio.runtime.handle40 tokio.task.local
1 tokio.io.interest
2 tokio.io.read_buf
3 tokio.loom.std.parking_lot
4 tokio.loom.std.unsafe_cell
5 tokio.runtime.id
6 tokio.time.instant
7 tokio_stream.stream_ext
8 tokio.loom.std.atomic_usize1
9 tokio.time.error1
10 tokio.util.linked_list12
11 tokio.runtime.task21523
12 tokio.runtime.time.wheel1
13 tokio.runtime.driver1
14 tokio.runtime.builder1
15 tokio.runtime.context11
16 tokio.io.async_read11
17 tokio.io.async_write1
18 tokio.fs.file12111
19 tokio.io.async_buf_read11
20 tokio.io.util.sink11
21 tokio.net.unix.stream11111
22 tokio.net.unix.pipe212112
23 tokio.runtime.driver.op1112
24 tokio.runtime.io.driver1111
25 tokio_test.io2122112
26 tokio.process.windows12111
27 tokio.runtime.blocking.pool11111135
28 tokio.runtime.io.scheduled_io2213213
29 tokio.runtime.dump12
30 tokio.runtime.task.list12142
31 tokio.sync.batch_semaphore11223121
32 tokio.sync.notify21361334
33 tokio.runtime.scheduler.current_thread1138221111
34 tokio.runtime.scheduler.multi_thread.worker123112
35 tokio.runtime.task.core34111211
36 tokio.runtime.task.raw112
37 tokio.blocking111
38 tokio.runtime.runtime11111
39 tokio.runtime.handle11111
40 tokio.task.local115511221
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
1 tokio.io.interest2 tokio.io.read_buf3 tokio.loom.std.parking_lot4 tokio.loom.std.unsafe_cell5 tokio.runtime.id6 tokio.time.instant7 tokio_stream.stream_ext8 tokio.loom.std.atomic_usize9 tokio.time.error10 tokio.util.linked_list11 tokio.runtime.task12 tokio.runtime.time.wheel13 tokio.runtime.driver14 tokio.runtime.builder15 tokio.runtime.context16 tokio.io.async_read17 tokio.io.async_write18 tokio.fs.file19 tokio.io.async_buf_read20 tokio.io.util.sink21 tokio.net.unix.stream22 tokio.net.unix.pipe23 tokio.runtime.driver.op24 tokio.runtime.io.driver25 tokio_test.io26 tokio.process.windows27 tokio.runtime.blocking.pool28 tokio.runtime.io.scheduled_io29 tokio.runtime.dump30 tokio.runtime.task.list31 tokio.sync.batch_semaphore32 tokio.sync.notify33 tokio.runtime.scheduler.current_thread34 tokio.runtime.scheduler.multi_thread.worker35 tokio.runtime.task.core36 tokio.runtime.task.raw37 tokio.blocking38 tokio.runtime.runtime39 tokio.runtime.handle40 tokio.task.localtokio.io.interest1tokio.io.read_buf2tokio.loom.std.parking_lot3tokio.loom.std.unsafe_cell4tokio.runtime.id5tokio.time.instant6tokio_stream.stream_ext7tokio.loom.std.atomic_usize8tokio.time.error9tokio.util.linked_list10tokio.runtime.task11tokio.runtime.time.wheel12tokio.runtime.driver13tokio.runtime.builder14tokio.runtime.context15tokio.io.async_read16tokio.io.async_write17tokio.fs.file18tokio.io.async_buf_read19tokio.io.util.sink20tokio.net.unix.stream21tokio.net.unix.pipe22tokio.runtime.driver.op23tokio.runtime.io.driver24tokio_test.io25tokio.process.windows26tokio.runtime.blocking.pool27tokio.runtime.io.scheduled_io28tokio.runtime.dump29tokio.runtime.task.list30tokio.sync.batch_semaphore31tokio.sync.notify32tokio.runtime.scheduler.current_thread33tokio.runtime.scheduler.multi_thread.worker34tokio.runtime.task.core35tokio.runtime.task.raw36tokio.blocking37tokio.runtime.runtime38tokio.runtime.handle39tokio.task.local40111221523111111111211111111111121211211121111212211212111111111352213213121214211223121213613341138221111123112341112111121111111111111115511221+380 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 95% · Exemplary ·

The Good
D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 9.3 D3 · Rust God Classes 9.7 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.6 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 9.9 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0
The Bad
D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 6.5

At a glance — Architecture · 91% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

The Good
D5 · Rust Coupling 10.0 D6 · Rust Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.8 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 9.6 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0
The Ugly
D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 0.0

At a glance — Maturity · 60% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good
D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · Rust Bus Factor 9.2 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 10.0 D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 9.1 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.3 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Ugly
D20 · Rust ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 79% · Strong ·

The Good
D9 · Rust Test Distribution 9.3 D12 · Rust Dependency Hygiene 8.3 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 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 9.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 8.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0
The Bad
P2 · Repo Observability 5.5

At a glance — Security · 71% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

The Good
D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 10.0 D37 · Rust Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 10.0 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 8.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0
The Bad
D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 6.0
The Ugly
D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Performance · 94% · Exemplary ·

The Good
PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 9.0 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
A05:2025 — Injection186High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures4Medium

Roadmap

Begin by resolving the missing architecture decision records and establishing a dedicated folder to document significant design choices with their context and consequences. Next, enhance the project's accessibility by adding a quick-start build and run section to the root README for new contributors. Finally, strengthen the security posture by configuring response headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Content-Type-Options in your web server or hosting configuration, and ensure all supply-chain artifacts are properly signed to verify their provenance.

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.+9.6 ptsLowADR Quality
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.+9.0 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+1.6 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+1.6 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+1.6 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.+2.9 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.+1.3 ptsLowStatic Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.+1.3 ptsLowStatic Analysis (SAST)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 119 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 43% mixed · 57% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED4.4MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED4.4MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED4.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
tokio/src/fs/file.rs5.5MixedCognitive Complexity: File::poll_write (cognitive 21)
tokio/src/net/udp.rs5.6MixedGod Classes: TooManyMethods: UdpSocket
REDACTED5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
tokio/src/net/tcp/stream.rs5.9MixedGod Classes: TooManyMethods: TcpStream
tokio/src/net/tcp/listener.rs5.9MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (6 lines × 3)
tokio/src/sync/batch_semaphore.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tokio/src/sync/oneshot.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tokio-test/src/io.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tokio/src/runtime/scheduler/current_thread/mod.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tokio/src/fs/open_options.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tokio-util/src/util/memchr.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tokio/src/runtime/builder.rs6.3MixedGod Classes: TooManyMethods: Builder
tokio/src/net/unix/datagram/socket.rs6.3MixedGod Classes: TooManyMethods: UnixDatagram
tokio/tests/fs_open_options.rs6.4MixedExplicit Debt: HackComment
tokio/tests/time_pause.rs6.6MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment

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 — 187

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 — 218

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 — 44

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

Could not be resolved — 23

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 49 of 49 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); none rely on LLM judgement. Overall confidence is 0.8 — 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 — 49 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D12D13D14D15D16D17D19D20D26D28D29D34D35D36D37AX10AX3AX4AX8AX9M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6PF1PF3S1X1X14X15X21X27X28X29X30X4

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, 434 of 449 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 measurement—◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a17533-0fa1-7556-9ac4-f9831a8812e8.

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.
  • D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.rs) and this repository declares a Cargo test suite (repository root, 339 test files), but it was not re-run: its build outgrew the 6 GB scratch ceiling (6.33 GB measured) and was stopped; its suite was not run. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • D19 Documentation Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Each ecosystem's manifests (what makes a folder runnable or a published package) need their own proof before D19 judges its units. Until then those folders' READMEs are judged only as documents (boilerplate, structure), never counted as complete.
  • D21 Naming Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D21's deterministic naming rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. Until then its declarations carry no naming verdict this run — this says nothing about whether its names are consistent.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22's deterministic call-shape rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. This says nothing about whether that surface is consistent.
  • D24 Comment Value — 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's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
  • D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life — 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 dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
  • 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.
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. M4 checks only the claim kinds adjudicated at or above 95 % precision: links and versions (PREREGISTRATION version 9). Paths, command arguments, installs, environment variables, settings, projects, packages, routes, cd targets, infrastructure products and removed modules are read but not checked, and none of them is reported or counted.
  • 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.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin 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.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin 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.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin 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.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin 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.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP 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.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP 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.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and Java, TypeScript/JavaScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin or PHP 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.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby and Python source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby or Python 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.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart or Ruby 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 reads C# syntax, and PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby, Scala, Dart, Swift, Erlang, Go and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby, Scala, Dart, Swift, Erlang, Go, JavaScript or 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.
  • 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 reads C# syntax and MSBuild project configuration, TypeScript source and its tsconfig files, Java source and its package and module declarations, PHP source and its PHPStan and Psalm configuration, Dart source and its pubspec language version, Ruby source and its Sorbet and Steep configuration, Scala source and its build's explicit-nulls, WartRemover and Scalafix settings, and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no TypeScript was found, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • 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 publishes two things only: a runnable or packaged unit with no example, and a multi-project root README that maps none of its parts. It does not judge clarity, and its other checks (overview, licence, boilerplate, structure, empty sections, XML-doc coverage) are withheld after adjudication: their candidates are counted in the card's gaps, not shown as rows. A false statement in a document is M4's; units are .NET projects only.
  • 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.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • 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.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.3 / 10Stronggated by 4 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 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

4 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was NotifiedProject::poll_notified at 22.

tokio_macros::select::clean_pattern (cyclomatic 22) · ×3tokio-macros/src/select.rs:59
NotifiedProject::poll_notified (cyclomatic 22)tokio/src/sync/notify.rs:1105

What to do

  1. Bring the 4 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with NotifiedProject::poll_notified (cyclomatic 22), tokio_macros::select::clean_pattern (cyclomatic 22), tokio_macros::entry::contains_impl_trait (cyclomatic 16). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 4 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 9.3 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
  2. 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 Complexity6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

25 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was NotifiedProject::poll_notified at 63.

File::poll_write (cognitive 21) · ×3tokio/src/fs/file.rs:803
Semaphore::poll_acquire (cognitive 25) · ×2tokio/src/sync/batch_semaphore.rs:432
Inner::poll_recv (cognitive 24) · ×2tokio/src/sync/oneshot.rs:1317
Mock::poll_write (cognitive 20) · ×2tokio-test/src/io.rs:408
NotifiedProject::poll_notified (cognitive 63)tokio/src/sync/notify.rs:1105

+ 15 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Bring the 1 body over 30 down to 30 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with NotifiedProject::poll_notified (cognitive 63). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 6.5 to about 7.3/10.
  2. 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 Classes9.7 / 10Stronggated by 9 serious findings✓ 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 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

TooManyMethods: UdpSocket · ×5tokio/src/net/udp.rs:14
FileTooLong: multi_thread/worker.rstokio/src/runtime/scheduler/multi_thread/worker.rs
ClassTooLong: UdpSockettokio/src/net/udp.rs:14
TooManyFields: Buildertokio/src/runtime/builder.rs:55
MethodTooLong: NotifiedProject.poll_notifiedtokio/src/sync/notify.rs:1105

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with socket.rs (2), udp.rs, builder.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with worker.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with udp.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 Duplication9.6 / 10Stronggated by 94 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 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

89 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 5 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×8tokio/src/io/util/buf_reader.rs:214
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×6tokio-util/src/io/simplex.rs:219
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×6tokio-util/src/sync/cancellation_token.rs:350
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×6tokio-util/src/sync/cancellation_token.rs:461
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×6tokio/src/io/util/mem.rs:346

+ 31 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 8 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with write_guard.rs (2), buf_reader.rs, rwlock.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with rwlock.rs (2), simplex.rs, copy.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with owned_write_guard.rs (2), cancellation_token.rs, async_fd.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 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

5 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 4 of the 5 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.8 / 10Stronggated by 5 serious findings✓ 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 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

5 of 283 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: Empty (LCOM4 8) · ×5tokio-stream/src/empty.rs:11

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with empty.rs, file.rs, driver.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D9 · Test Distribution9.3 / 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 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2299 test methods: 352 unit, 1947 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 2299 `#[test]` function(s) across 339 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 250 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.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 8.3 / 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 8.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 83% · ceiling Verified

0 outdated, 0 yanked direct Cargo dependencies. 25 of 30 direct crates were graded against crates.io (0 not published there, 5 not resolved by a committed Cargo.lock). 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 Cargo.lock there.

What to do

  1. Maintain Dependency Hygiene — already on the Gold path. — No findings, and enforcement is at this dimension's ceiling.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.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 124 shipped crate(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from crates.io over the crates a consumer compiles — this repository commits no Cargo.lock, so its graph was resolved here: its manifests' `[dependencies]` and `[build-dependencies]` closed over the crates.io index, each crate at the newest release its requirement admits (what a fresh `cargo generate-lockfile` picks, not a graph the repository has pinned). 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 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ 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

Top hotspots: tokio/src/sync/batch_semaphore.rs (8×15=120); tokio/src/sync/notify.rs (3×22=66)

Hotspot: tokio/src/sync/batch_semaphore.rs · ×2tokio/src/sync/batch_semaphore.rs:432

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with batch_semaphore.rs, notify.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D16 · Bus Factor9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

21 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is tokio/src/signal/windows.rs. Counted over 277 of the 465 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 · ×2
Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D17 · Explicit Debt9.9 / 10Stronggated by 70 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

70 deducted task-comment markers across 114445 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.9. 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 · ×47tokio-util/src/util/maybe_dangling.rs:25
HackComment · ×12tokio/tests/fs_open_options.rs:39
FixmeComment · ×10tokio/tests/fs_uring_statx_fd_leak_test.rs:8
XxxCommenttokio/src/runtime/context/blocking.rs:112

What to do

  1. Resolve the 47 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with time_pause.rs (4), io.rs (3), local.rs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (47 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 12 HackComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with fs_open_options.rs (8), fs_open_options_windows.rs (3), park.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 10 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with try_exists.rs (3), op.rs (2), fs_uring_statx_fd_leak_test.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 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 Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

Method: Every README, docs/ document and root guide parsed by its markup and measured in Unicode letters. Published: a runnable or packaged .NET project whose README (or a document it links, or a root guide) shows no example, and a root README naming none of three or more projects. Overview, licence, boilerplate, wall-of-text, empty-section and XML-doc rows are measured and withheld (counted in gaps) after adjudication. Deterministic, exhaustive, advisory.

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

1 of 1 documentation facets pass in full. 18 document(s) read across 1 unit(s).

✓ 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.

D26 · Project Cohesion0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

186 finding(s): 0 critical, 186 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 183 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 3 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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  3. No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 183 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 (183 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

D34 · Knowledge Freshness9.1 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

26 of 277 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is tokio-util/src/io/sync_bridge.rs. Counted over 277 of the 465 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×26tokio-util/src/io/sync_bridge.rs:1
Orphaned files with no living knowledge

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: stderr.rs↔stdout.rs 90%; framed_read.rs↔framed_write.rs 71%; listener.rs↔listener.rs 69%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: lib.rs ↔ lib.rstokio-macros/src/lib.rs:1
Change coupling: framed_read.rs ↔ framed_write.rs · ×5tokio-util/src/codec/framed_read.rs:1
Change-coupling hub: stream.rs → udp.rs, socket.rs, listener.rs, stream.rs · ×2tokio/src/net/tcp/stream.rs
Change coupling clique: stderr.rs, stdin.rs, stdout.rstokio/src/io/stderr.rs

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with lib.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 5 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with framed_read.rs, listener.rs, async_read_ext.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 2 Change-coupling hub finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with stream.rs, socket.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

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

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

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.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 4 of 12 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 0.7 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 your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
  • 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○ Nothing flagged

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 · Observability5.5 / 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 2/4 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `tokio-macros`, `tokio-stream`.

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 tooling9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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

  • Dependabot is configured but does not watch `cargo` — add that `package-ecosystem` entry to REDACTED so those dependencies get the same automatic update and advisory pressure as the ones it already covers.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
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 Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

PF1 · Benchmark discipline9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

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, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

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

Other · Security — Read from this repository's Rust source: cryptographic hygiene (weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source) and outbound TLS (certificate validation, protocol version) — facts about code that hold whether or not it serves anything itself. This repository commits the configuration that serves its own HTTP surface, so that configuration was read in full for the security response headers it sets. The server controls — HTTPS enforcement, HSTS, cookie flags, input validation — are read from a Rust server this repository starts itself, and its production Rust starts none. What serves its HTTP is outside the Rust source, and only what this card names about it was assessed.

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

  • None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. 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.
X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other · Code Health — Whether a `for` loop leaves the `RefCell` it is walking alone — safe Rust rejects a body that changes the collection its loop borrows at compile time, except through interior mutability: a `RefCell` borrowed in the loop's header stays borrowed until the loop ends, so a `borrow_mut()` of it inside the body panics with `already borrowed: BorrowMutError` and the remaining elements are never seen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Health95%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Architecture91%Adequate — gated by D26Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity60%Adequate — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness79%StrongSolid.
Security71%Adequate — gated by D36Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance94%ExemplarySolid.
Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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

  • X10 Duplicated predicate — 2 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 1 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.

  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 67 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: Rust with no dependency-injection crate has no container to hand one lifetime's instance to another — every value is owned by the code that builds it, and the borrow checker rejects a longer-lived value keeping a borrow of a shorter-lived one.
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: Rust's compiler refuses unsynchronised shared mutation — a value shared across threads must be Sync — so the race this check looks for cannot be written.
  • AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
  • C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect.
  • C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — this repository starts no server another machine can reach (no actix-web HttpServer, axum::serve, Rocket launch, warp::serve, poem or salvo Server, tonic Server::builder, hyper or tiny_http server outside examples and tests, none bound beyond loopback). Access control is therefore N/A here — a crate is authorized by the application that serves it, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
  • C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no sensitive data whose changes an audit trail would record. If it does (through a store configured outside this repository, for instance), the trail belongs to wherever that data is stored.
  • C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
  • D10 Test Quality — ~51500 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.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .rs suite was found but not re-run
  • 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.
  • D21 Naming Consistency — Naming consistency is measured on C# only; Rust not measured.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — API consistency is measured on C# only; the exposed Rust surface was not measured.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
  • D24 Comment Value — D24 reads C# and Visual Basic comments only — this repository's production source is .rs, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.rs), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Cargo manifest — not scanned yet).
  • 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.
  • D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Cargo manifest — not scanned yet).
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
  • 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 (79 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 — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • 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#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Rust source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
  • P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Rust spells out every heap allocation and makes borrowed slices (&[T], &str) its ordinary parameter types, so the allocation-aware style this card rewards elsewhere is the language's baseline rather than a rung to climb.
  • X12 Unreachable branch — 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
  • X13 Undrained process stream — 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
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — 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
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — 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
  • X18 Disposal-pattern 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
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — 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
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Rust was read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller — a Rust request takes no token: a future is cancelled by dropping it, from outside the call (select!, a timeout, an aborted task), and reqwest, hyper and tonic take none
  • X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X22 Contradicted release guard — 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
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — 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
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — 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
  • X25 Inert configuration knob — 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
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — Not applicable: this check looks for a collection written by a callback on one thread while the body waiting on it touches it on another, and in this repository's languages no collection is reachable from two threads at once. Rust's compiler refuses the unsynchronised version: a collection shared between a callback's thread and the waiting body must be `Sync`, which a `Vec`, `VecDeque` or `HashMap` is only behind a `Mutex`/`RwLock`, so the race this check looks for cannot be written in safe Rust. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 — 187 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
  • + 158 more in this group — see findings.md.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×1
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: lib.rs ↔ lib.rs tokio-macros/src/lib.rs:1 — `tokio-macros/src/lib.rs` (context tokio-macros) and `tokio-test/src/lib.rs` (context tokio-test) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 52% of the time (12 of the 23 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 12 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `2a0df5fb` ci: bump nightly to nightly-2024-05-05 (#6538); `a8b662f6` ci: upgrade to new nightly (#4268); `4818c2ed` fs: document performance considerations (#3920) — run `git show` on any of them.
Serious — 218 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×47
  • TodoComment tokio-util/src/util/maybe_dangling.rs:25 — // TODO: replace this with an official solution once RFC #3336 or similar is available.
  • TodoComment tokio-util/src/util/memchr.rs:30 — // TODO(MSRV 1.87): When bumping MSRV, switch to `ptr.byte_offset_from_unsigned(start)`. — 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/src/util/memchr.rs:30 — // TODO(MSRV 1.87): When bumping MSRV, switch to `ptr.byte_offset_from_unsigned(start)`. — 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-util/src/time/wheel/level.rs:62 — // TODO: This can probably be simplified w/ power of 2 math — 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-util/src/sync/mpsc.rs:70 — // TODO: This should be replace with a type_alias_impl_trait to eliminate `'static` and all the transmutes — 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-util/src/io/read_arc.rs:30 — // TODO(MSRV future): Use `Arc::get_mut_unchecked` once it's stabilized. — 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-test/src/io.rs:286 — // TODO: remove write — 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-test/src/io.rs:468 — // TODO: Is this correct? — 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-test/src/io.rs:473 — // TODO: Extract — 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/tests/rt_basic.rs:90 — // TODO: could probably avoid this, but why not. — 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/tests/tcp_connect.rs:214 — // TODO: Drop? — 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/tests/time_pause.rs:103 — // TODO: Skip this — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tokio/tests/time_pause.rs:164 — // TODO: Skip this — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tokio/tests/time_pause.rs:182 — // TODO: Skip this — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tokio/tests/time_pause.rs:200 — // TODO: Skip this — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tokio/tests/time_sleep.rs:178 — // TODO: is this required? — 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/tests/time_timeout.rs:124 — // TODO: don't require this — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tokio/tests/tracing_task.rs:128 — // TODO(hds): check that original_size.bytes is NOT recorded when this can be done in — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tokio/src/lib.rs:497 — // TODO: improve once we have MSRV access to const eval to make more flexible. — 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/src/lib.rs:747 — // TODO: rm — 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/src/task/local.rs:924 — // TODO: This should be set as a builder — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tokio/src/task/local.rs:1263 — // TODO: remove this hack when thread id is cleaned up — 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/src/task/local.rs:1339 — // TODO(eliza): it would be nice to be able to assert that this is — 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/src/sync/batch_semaphore.rs:106 — /// TODO: Ideally, we would be able to use loom to enforce that — 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/src/sync/batch_semaphore.rs:317 — // TODO: Instrument once issue has been solved — 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.
  • + 22 more in this group — see findings.md.
D17 · Explicit Debt · HackComment · ×12
  • HackComment tokio/tests/fs_open_options.rs:39 — // TESTING HACK: use Debug output to check the stored data — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
  • HackComment tokio/tests/fs_open_options.rs:45 — // TESTING HACK: use Debug output to check the stored data — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
  • HackComment tokio/tests/fs_open_options.rs:51 — // TESTING HACK: use Debug output to check the stored data — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
  • HackComment tokio/tests/fs_open_options.rs:57 — // TESTING HACK: use Debug output to check the stored data — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
  • HackComment tokio/tests/fs_open_options.rs:63 — // TESTING HACK: use Debug output to check the stored data — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
  • HackComment tokio/tests/fs_open_options.rs:71 — // TESTING HACK: use Debug output to check the stored data — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
  • HackComment tokio/tests/fs_open_options.rs:81 — // TESTING HACK: use Debug output to check the stored data — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
  • HackComment tokio/tests/fs_open_options.rs:91 — // TESTING HACK: use Debug output to check the stored data — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
  • HackComment tokio/tests/fs_open_options_windows.rs:11 — // TESTING HACK: use Debug output to check the stored data — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
  • HackComment tokio/tests/fs_open_options_windows.rs:18 — // TESTING HACK: use Debug output to check the stored data — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
  • HackComment tokio/tests/fs_open_options_windows.rs:25 — // TESTING HACK: use Debug output to check the stored data — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
  • HackComment tokio/src/runtime/scheduler/multi_thread/park.rs:97 — // Hacky, but it's just for loom tests. The counter gets incremented during — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×10
  • FixmeComment tokio/tests/fs_uring_statx_fd_leak_test.rs:8 — // FIXME in `src/fs/read.rs`); on musl it falls back to `spawn_blocking` and — 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/tests/tracing_time.rs:31 — // FIXME(hds): This value isn't stable and doesn't seem to make sense. We're not — 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/src/runtime/driver/op.rs:13 — // FIXME: Add musl target env when our minimum supported — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • FixmeComment tokio/src/runtime/driver/op.rs:45 — // FIXME: Add musl target env when our minimum supported — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • FixmeComment tokio/src/io/uring/statx.rs:7 — // FIXME: Add musl target env when our minimum supported — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • FixmeComment tokio/src/fs/read.rs:65 — // FIXME: Add musl target env when our minimum supported — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • FixmeComment tokio/src/fs/read_uring.rs:27 — // FIXME: Add musl target env when our minimum supported — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • FixmeComment tokio/src/fs/try_exists.rs:34 — // FIXME: Add musl target env when our minimum supported — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • FixmeComment tokio/src/fs/try_exists.rs:64 — // FIXME: Add musl target env when our minimum supported — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • FixmeComment tokio/src/fs/try_exists.rs:87 — // FIXME: When MSRV is 1.81, change this to — 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×8
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) tokio/src/io/util/buf_reader.rs:214 — tokio/src/io/util/buf_reader.rs:214-224 | tokio/src/io/util/buf_reader.rs:229-239 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:705 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:705-715 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:1070-1080 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:449 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:449-459 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard_mapped.rs:219-229 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs` and `tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard_mapped.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 37 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:39 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:39-49 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard_mapped.rs:37-47 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs` and `tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard_mapped.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:446 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:446-456 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard_mapped.rs:202-212 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs` and `tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard_mapped.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) tokio/src/task/join_set.rs:325 — tokio/src/task/join_set.rs:325-335 | tokio/src/task/join_set.rs:354-364 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) tokio-util/src/util/memchr.rs:36 — tokio-util/src/util/memchr.rs:36-46 | tokio/src/util/memchr.rs:36-46 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) tokio/src/net/tcp/split_owned.rs:59 — tokio/src/net/tcp/split_owned.rs:59-69 | tokio/src/net/unix/split_owned.rs:59-69 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×6
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) tokio-util/src/io/simplex.rs:219 — tokio-util/src/io/simplex.rs:219-233 | tokio-util/src/io/simplex.rs:303-317 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) tokio/src/io/util/copy.rs:124 — tokio/src/io/util/copy.rs:124-138 | tokio/src/io/util/copy_buf.rs:122-136 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:226 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:226-240 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:300-314 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:229 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:229-243 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard_mapped.rs:148-162 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs` and `tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard_mapped.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) tokio-util/src/codec/framed_read.rs:122 — tokio-util/src/codec/framed_read.rs:122-136 | tokio-util/src/codec/framed_write.rs:119-133 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:636 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:636-650 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:1008-1022 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×6
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) tokio-util/src/sync/cancellation_token.rs:350 — tokio-util/src/sync/cancellation_token.rs:350-362 | tokio-util/src/sync/cancellation_token.rs:410-423 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) tokio/src/io/async_fd.rs:1092 — tokio/src/io/async_fd.rs:1092-1104 | tokio/src/io/async_fd.rs:1320-1332 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) tokio/src/io/util/copy.rs:94 — tokio/src/io/util/copy.rs:94-106 | tokio/src/io/util/copy_buf.rs:92-104 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) tokio/src/net/unix/listener.rs:81 — tokio/src/net/unix/listener.rs:81-93 | tokio/src/net/unix/stream.rs:86-98 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:39 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:39-51 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard_mapped.rs:38-50 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs` and `tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard_mapped.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 37 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:219 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:219-231 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard_mapped.rs:145-157 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs` and `tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard_mapped.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 37 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 (9 lines × 2) · ×6
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) tokio-util/src/sync/cancellation_token.rs:461 — tokio-util/src/sync/cancellation_token.rs:461-469 | tokio-util/src/sync/cancellation_token.rs:489-497 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) tokio/src/runtime/local_runtime/runtime.rs:251 — tokio/src/runtime/local_runtime/runtime.rs:251-259 | tokio/src/runtime/runtime.rs:368-376 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) tokio/src/runtime/scheduler/current_thread/mod.rs:513 — tokio/src/runtime/scheduler/current_thread/mod.rs:513-521 | tokio/src/runtime/scheduler/multi_thread/handle.rs:91-99 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) tokio/src/runtime/task/id.rs:70 — tokio/src/runtime/task/id.rs:70-78 | tokio/src/runtime/thread_id.rs:8-16 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/broadcast.rs:998 — tokio/src/sync/broadcast.rs:998-1006 | tokio/src/sync/notify.rs:337-345 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/semaphore.rs:618 — tokio/src/sync/semaphore.rs:618-626 | tokio/src/sync/semaphore.rs:888-896 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×6
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) tokio/src/io/util/mem.rs:346 — tokio/src/io/util/mem.rs:346-353 | tokio/src/io/util/mem.rs:371-378 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) tokio-stream/src/stream_ext/map_while.rs:92 — tokio-stream/src/stream_ext/map_while.rs:92-99 | tokio-stream/src/stream_ext/take_while.rs:91-99 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) tokio/src/runtime/handle.rs:201 — tokio/src/runtime/handle.rs:201-208 | tokio/src/task/local.rs:595-602 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) tokio/src/runtime/handle.rs:342 — tokio/src/runtime/handle.rs:342-349 | tokio/src/runtime/runtime.rs:343-350 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) tokio/src/net/tcp/stream.rs:174 — tokio/src/net/tcp/stream.rs:174-181 | tokio/src/net/unix/stream.rs:926-933 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) tokio-macros/src/entry.rs:217 — tokio-macros/src/entry.rs:217-224 | tokio-macros/src/entry.rs:229-236 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×5
  • TooManyMethods: UdpSocket tokio/src/net/udp.rs:14 — TooManyMethods — 62 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 32 over it, 2.07× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (REDACTED) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
  • TooManyMethods: Builder tokio/src/runtime/builder.rs:55 — TooManyMethods — 35 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 5 over it, 1.17× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (REDACTED) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
  • TooManyMethods: TcpSocket tokio/src/net/tcp/socket.rs:15 — TooManyMethods — 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (REDACTED) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
  • TooManyMethods: TcpStream tokio/src/net/tcp/stream.rs:25 — TooManyMethods — 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (REDACTED) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
  • TooManyMethods: UnixDatagram tokio/src/net/unix/datagram/socket.rs:17 — TooManyMethods — 31 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 1 over it, 1.03× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (REDACTED) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×5
  • Change coupling: framed_read.rs ↔ framed_write.rs tokio-util/src/codec/framed_read.rs:1 — `tokio-util/src/codec/framed_read.rs` and `tokio-util/src/codec/framed_write.rs` change together 71% of the time (10 of the 14 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency between them. They sit in the same directory, but in this ecosystem each file is its own module — a sibling reference still needs an import — so the missing import edge is real: the coupling runs through shared behaviour, not a declared dependency. If they duplicate structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 10 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `4421022c` codec: remove unnecessary trait bounds on all `Framed` constructors (…; `c8371d45` codec: add `{FramedRead,FramedWrite}::into_parts()` (#7566); `deff2524` util: document cancel safety of `SinkExt::send` and `StreamExt::next`… — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: listener.rs ↔ listener.rs tokio/src/net/tcp/listener.rs:1 — `tokio/src/net/tcp/listener.rs` and `tokio/src/net/unix/listener.rs` change together 69% of the time (24 of the 35 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 24 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `4fcaed99` net: start accepted sockets as readable and writable (#8435); `060f66c6` docs: clarify cancel safety wording (#8181); `042433cd` net: debug_assert on creating a tokio socket from a blocking one (#7166) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: async_read_ext.rs ↔ async_write_ext.rs tokio/src/io/util/async_read_ext.rs:1 — `tokio/src/io/util/async_read_ext.rs` and `tokio/src/io/util/async_write_ext.rs` change together 56% of the time (15 of the 27 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency between them. They sit in the same directory, but in this ecosystem each file is its own module — a sibling reference still needs an import — so the missing import edge is real: the coupling runs through shared behaviour, not a declared dependency. If they duplicate structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 15 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `060f66c6` docs: clarify cancel safety wording (#8181); `51286018` ci: fix clippy warnings (#5891); `106bb948` io: add (read|write)_f(32|64)[_le] methods (#4022) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: udp.rs ↔ listener.rs tokio/src/net/udp.rs:1 — `tokio/src/net/udp.rs` and `tokio/src/net/unix/listener.rs` change together 51% of the time (18 of the 35 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 18 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `060f66c6` docs: clarify cancel safety wording (#8181); `042433cd` net: debug_assert on creating a tokio socket from a blocking one (#7166); `fb08591b` tokio: removed unused `tokio_*` cfgs (#5890) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: config.rs ↔ mod.rs tokio/src/runtime/config.rs:1 — `tokio/src/runtime/config.rs` and `tokio/src/runtime/task/mod.rs` change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `231a8faf` tokio: `cargo check -p --all-features` without `tokio_unstable` (#8401); `6b62ac48` runtime: expose schedule latency in task hooks (#8282); `967f5715` runtime: revert "steal tasks from the LIFO slot" (#8100) — run `git show` on any of them.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×5
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) tokio/src/io/util/copy.rs:145 — tokio/src/io/util/copy.rs:145-156 | tokio/src/io/util/copy.rs:207-218 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) tokio/src/net/udp.rs:1369 — tokio/src/net/udp.rs:1369-1380 | tokio/src/net/unix/datagram/socket.rs:1191-1202 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio/src/net/udp.rs` and `tokio/src/net/unix/datagram/socket.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 36 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:140 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:140-151 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:280-291 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:92 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:92-103 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard_mapped.rs:89-100 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs` and `tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard_mapped.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:148 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:148-159 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:295-306 — 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 (6 lines × 2) · ×5
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) tokio/src/net/tcp/listener.rs:292 — tokio/src/net/tcp/listener.rs:292-297 | tokio/src/net/tcp/stream.rs:290-295 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:1061 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:1061-1066 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:1120-1125 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) tokio/src/task/builder.rs:114 — tokio/src/task/builder.rs:114-119 | tokio/src/task/builder.rs:170-175 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) tokio/src/net/tcp/stream.rs:1144 — tokio/src/net/tcp/stream.rs:1144-1149 | tokio/src/net/unix/stream.rs:1000-1005 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) tokio/src/net/unix/datagram/socket.rs:524 — tokio/src/net/unix/datagram/socket.rs:524-529 | tokio/src/net/unix/stream.rs:901-906 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×5
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) tokio-stream/src/wrappers/tcp_listener.rs:67 — tokio-stream/src/wrappers/tcp_listener.rs:67-71 | tokio-stream/src/wrappers/unix_listener.rs:56-60 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) tokio/src/fs/file.rs:828 — tokio/src/fs/file.rs:828-832 | tokio/src/fs/file.rs:908-912 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) tokio/src/io/util/lines.rs:65 — tokio/src/io/util/lines.rs:65-69 | tokio/src/io/util/split.rs:61-65 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) tokio-test/src/io.rs:377 — tokio-test/src/io.rs:377-381 | tokio-test/src/io.rs:436-440 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) tokio-util/src/time/delay_queue.rs:760 — tokio-util/src/time/delay_queue.rs:760-764 | tokio-util/src/time/delay_queue.rs:865-869 — 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.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×5
  • Low cohesion: Empty (LCOM4 8) tokio-stream/src/empty.rs:11 — Empty's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: File (LCOM4 6) tokio/src/fs/file.rs:95 — File's methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: Handle (LCOM4 5) tokio/src/runtime/driver.rs:21 — Handle's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: SimplexStream (LCOM4 4) tokio/src/io/util/mem.rs:77 — SimplexStream's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: Builder (LCOM4 4) tokio/src/runtime/builder.rs:55 — Builder's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) tokio/src/net/udp.rs:824 — tokio/src/net/udp.rs:824-837 | tokio/src/net/unix/datagram/socket.rs:1293-1306 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio/src/net/udp.rs` and `tokio/src/net/unix/datagram/socket.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 36 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) tokio/src/runtime/scheduler/current_thread/mod.rs:515 — tokio/src/runtime/scheduler/current_thread/mod.rs:515-528 | tokio/src/runtime/scheduler/current_thread/mod.rs:555-568 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) tokio/src/util/idle_notified_set.rs:191 — tokio/src/util/idle_notified_set.rs:191-204 | tokio/src/util/idle_notified_set.rs:219-232 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) tokio/src/runtime/time/wheel/mod.rs:286 — tokio/src/runtime/time/wheel/mod.rs:286-299 | tokio/src/runtime/time_alt/wheel/mod.rs:226-239 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) tokio/src/net/unix/pipe.rs:663 — tokio/src/net/unix/pipe.rs:663-667 | tokio/src/net/unix/stream.rs:665-669 | tokio/src/net/windows/named_pipe.rs:753-757 | tokio/src/net/windows/named_pipe.rs:1545-1549 — there are 4 copies across 3 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) tokio/src/net/unix/pipe.rs:739 — tokio/src/net/unix/pipe.rs:739-743 | tokio/src/net/unix/stream.rs:727-731 | tokio/src/net/windows/named_pipe.rs:815-819 | tokio/src/net/windows/named_pipe.rs:1606-1610 — there are 4 copies across 3 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) tokio/src/net/unix/pipe.rs:1222 — tokio/src/net/unix/pipe.rs:1222-1226 | tokio/src/net/unix/stream.rs:364-368 | tokio/src/net/windows/named_pipe.rs:461-465 | tokio/src/net/windows/named_pipe.rs:1256-1260 — there are 4 copies across 3 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) tokio/src/net/unix/pipe.rs:1306 — tokio/src/net/unix/pipe.rs:1306-1310 | tokio/src/net/unix/stream.rs:442-446 | tokio/src/net/windows/named_pipe.rs:539-543 | tokio/src/net/windows/named_pipe.rs:1333-1337 — there are 4 copies across 3 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · tokio_macros · ×3
  • tokio_macros::select::clean_pattern (cyclomatic 22) tokio-macros/src/select.rs:59 — tokio_macros::select::clean_pattern has cyclomatic complexity 22 (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.
  • tokio_macros::entry::contains_impl_trait (cyclomatic 16) tokio-macros/src/entry.rs:311 — tokio_macros::entry::contains_impl_trait 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.
  • tokio_macros::entry::build_config (cyclomatic 16) tokio-macros/src/entry.rs:340 — tokio_macros::entry::build_config 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · File · ×3
  • File::poll_write (cognitive 21) tokio/src/fs/file.rs:803 — File::poll_write has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (File::poll_write_vectored) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
  • File::poll_write_vectored (cognitive 21) tokio/src/fs/file.rs:883 — File::poll_write_vectored has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (File::poll_write) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
  • File::poll_read (cognitive 17) tokio/src/fs/file.rs:649 — File::poll_read has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (10 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) tokio-stream/src/stream_map.rs:524 — tokio-stream/src/stream_map.rs:524-542 | tokio-stream/src/stream_map.rs:634-652 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) tokio/src/net/unix/ucred.rs:203 — tokio/src/net/unix/ucred.rs:203-221 | tokio/src/net/unix/ucred.rs:435-453 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) tokio/src/runtime/time/wheel/level.rs:110 — tokio/src/runtime/time/wheel/level.rs:110-128 | tokio/src/runtime/time_alt/wheel/level.rs:111-129 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) tokio/src/net/tcp/listener.rs:283 — tokio/src/net/tcp/listener.rs:283-288 | tokio/src/net/tcp/stream.rs:281-286 | tokio/src/net/udp.rs:266-271 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) tokio/src/fs/symlink.rs:11 — tokio/src/fs/symlink.rs:11-16 | tokio/src/fs/symlink_dir.rs:14-19 | tokio/src/fs/symlink_file.rs:14-19 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) tokio/src/loom/std/mutex.rs:21 — tokio/src/loom/std/mutex.rs:21-26 | tokio/src/loom/std/rwlock.rs:16-21 | tokio/src/loom/std/rwlock.rs:33-38 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) tokio/src/net/udp.rs:822 — tokio/src/net/udp.rs:822-826 | tokio/src/net/udp.rs:1617-1621 | tokio/src/net/unix/datagram/socket.rs:1291-1295 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio/src/net/udp.rs` and `tokio/src/net/unix/datagram/socket.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 36 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) tokio/src/net/udp.rs:1367 — tokio/src/net/udp.rs:1367-1371 | tokio/src/net/udp.rs:1766-1770 | tokio/src/net/unix/datagram/socket.rs:1189-1193 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio/src/net/udp.rs` and `tokio/src/net/unix/datagram/socket.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 36 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) tokio/src/runtime/task/waker.rs:84 — tokio/src/runtime/task/waker.rs:84-88 | tokio/src/runtime/task/waker.rs:95-99 | tokio/src/runtime/task/waker.rs:107-111 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×2
  • Hotspot: tokio/src/sync/batch_semaphore.rs tokio/src/sync/batch_semaphore.rs:432 — tokio/src/sync/batch_semaphore.rs changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in Semaphore::poll_acquire at line 432. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 13:09:45 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 13:09:45 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- tokio/src/sync/batch_semaphore.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: tokio/src/sync/notify.rs tokio/src/sync/notify.rs:1105 — tokio/src/sync/notify.rs changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 22 in NotifiedProject::poll_notified at line 1105. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 13:09:45 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 13:09:45 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- tokio/src/sync/notify.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Semaphore · ×2
  • Semaphore::poll_acquire (cognitive 25) tokio/src/sync/batch_semaphore.rs:432 — Semaphore::poll_acquire has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (21 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
  • Semaphore::add_permits_locked (cognitive 16) tokio/src/sync/batch_semaphore.rs:334 — Semaphore::add_permits_locked has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (9 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Inner · ×2
  • Inner::poll_recv (cognitive 24) tokio/src/sync/oneshot.rs:1317 — Inner::poll_recv has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (20 pts), match/switch 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
  • Inner::action (cognitive 23) tokio-test/src/io.rs:299 — Inner::action has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (20 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Mock · ×2
  • Mock::poll_write (cognitive 20) tokio-test/src/io.rs:408 — Mock::poll_write has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (8 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
  • Mock::poll_read (cognitive 17) tokio-test/src/io.rs:360 — Mock::poll_read has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change-coupling hub · ×2
  • Change-coupling hub: stream.rs → udp.rs, socket.rs, listener.rs, stream.rs tokio/src/net/tcp/stream.rs — `tokio/src/net/tcp/stream.rs` changes together with 4 other files — `tokio/src/net/udp.rs`, `tokio/src/net/unix/datagram/socket.rs`, `tokio/src/net/unix/listener.rs`, `tokio/src/net/unix/stream.rs` — none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 4 separate couplings, not 4 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 4.
  • Change-coupling hub: socket.rs → udp.rs, listener.rs, stream.rs tokio/src/net/unix/datagram/socket.rs — `tokio/src/net/unix/datagram/socket.rs` changes together with 3 other files — `tokio/src/net/udp.rs`, `tokio/src/net/unix/listener.rs`, `tokio/src/net/unix/stream.rs` — none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 3 separate couplings, not 3 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 3.
D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 17 shared lines) · ×2
  • Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 17 shared lines) tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:138 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:138-172 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:275-312 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:359-392 — These 3 members are variants of one another: a block of 17 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.
  • Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 17 shared lines) tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:146 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:146-180 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:290-327 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:376-409 — These 3 members are variants of one another: a block of 17 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) · ×2
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) tokio/src/fs/file.rs:653 — tokio/src/fs/file.rs:653-717 | tokio/src/fs/file.rs:766-799 | tokio/src/fs/file.rs:807-881 | tokio/src/fs/file.rs:887-961 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) tokio/src/sync/barrier.rs:63 — tokio/src/sync/barrier.rs:63-111 | tokio/src/sync/oneshot.rs:497-579 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:206-253 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:273-327 — 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 (17 lines × 6) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 6) tokio/src/fs/open_options.rs:169 — tokio/src/fs/open_options.rs:169-185 | tokio/src/fs/open_options.rs:213-229 | tokio/src/fs/open_options.rs:286-302 | tokio/src/fs/open_options.rs:333-349 | tokio/src/fs/open_options.rs:383-399 | tokio/src/fs/open_options.rs:440-456 — all 6 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 6) tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:153 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:153-169 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:293-309 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:373-389 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:161-177 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:308-324 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock/write_guard.rs:390-406 — there are 6 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 6 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) tokio/src/io/blocking.rs:189 — tokio/src/io/blocking.rs:189-198 | tokio/src/io/blocking.rs:228-237 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/mutex.rs:343 — tokio/src/sync/mutex.rs:343-352 | tokio/src/sync/semaphore.rs:487-496 — 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 (7 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) tokio-util/src/task/join_queue.rs:407 — tokio-util/src/task/join_queue.rs:407-413 | tokio/src/task/join_set.rs:643-649 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) tokio/src/net/tcp/split_owned.rs:488 — tokio/src/net/tcp/split_owned.rs:488-494 | tokio/src/net/unix/split_owned.rs:400-406 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) tokio-util/src/time/wheel/mod.rs:228 — tokio-util/src/time/wheel/mod.rs:228-239 | tokio/src/runtime/time/wheel/mod.rs:263-274 | tokio/src/runtime/time_alt/wheel/mod.rs:203-214 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) tokio/src/sync/mutex.rs:449 — tokio/src/sync/mutex.rs:449-460 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:457-468 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:840-851 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio/src/sync/mutex.rs` and `tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 34 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 (7 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) tokio/src/loom/std/mutex.rs:29 — tokio/src/loom/std/mutex.rs:29-35 | tokio/src/loom/std/rwlock.rs:24-30 | tokio/src/loom/std/rwlock.rs:41-47 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) tokio/src/net/tcp/listener.rs:243 — tokio/src/net/tcp/listener.rs:243-249 | tokio/src/net/tcp/stream.rs:225-231 | tokio/src/net/unix/listener.rs:156-162 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · NotifiedProject · ×1
  • NotifiedProject::poll_notified (cyclomatic 22) tokio/src/sync/notify.rs:1105 — NotifiedProject::poll_notified has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D17 · Explicit Debt · XxxComment · ×1
  • XxxComment tokio/src/runtime/context/blocking.rs:112 — // XXX: Do we want some kind of assertion here, or is "best effort" okay? — 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 · NotifiedProject · ×1
  • NotifiedProject::poll_notified (cognitive 63) tokio/src/sync/notify.rs:1105 — NotifiedProject::poll_notified has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (43 pts), match/switch 4 (16 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 43). 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 · Receiver · ×1
  • Receiver::recv_ref (cognitive 27) tokio/src/sync/broadcast.rs:1256 — Receiver::recv_ref has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (22 pts), match/switch 1 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 19). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CopyBuffer · ×1
  • CopyBuffer::poll_copy (cognitive 24) tokio/src/io/util/copy.rs:83 — CopyBuffer::poll_copy has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (17 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · StreamMap · ×1
  • StreamMap::poll_next_many (cognitive 23) tokio-stream/src/stream_map.rs:597 — StreamMap::poll_next_many has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FramedImpl · ×1
  • FramedImpl::poll_next (cognitive 23) tokio-util/src/codec/framed_impl.rs:125 — FramedImpl::poll_next has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (20 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BufWriter · ×1
  • BufWriter::poll_write_vectored (cognitive 22) tokio/src/io/util/buf_writer.rs:137 — BufWriter::poll_write_vectored has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (18 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LockedImpl · ×1
  • LockedImpl::run_worker (cognitive 20) tokio/src/runtime/blocking/pool.rs:644 — LockedImpl::run_worker has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), loops 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CoreGuard · ×1
  • CoreGuard::block_on (cognitive 20) tokio/src/runtime/scheduler/current_thread/mod.rs:818 — CoreGuard::block_on has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (13 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Interest · ×1
  • Interest::fmt (cognitive 18) tokio/src/io/interest.rs:287 — Interest::fmt has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (18 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Readiness · ×1
  • Readiness::poll (cognitive 18) tokio/src/runtime/io/scheduled_io.rs:442 — Readiness::poll has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (13 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Rx · ×1
  • Rx::recv_many (cognitive 18) tokio/src/sync/mpsc/chan.rs:360 — Rx::recv_many has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), loops 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Context · ×1
  • Context::run (cognitive 17) tokio/src/runtime/scheduler/multi_thread/worker.rs:571 — Context::run has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ShardedImpl · ×1
  • ShardedImpl::run_worker (cognitive 16) tokio/src/runtime/blocking/sharded.rs:238 — ShardedImpl::run_worker has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (9 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ScheduledIo · ×1
  • ScheduledIo::wake (cognitive 16) tokio/src/runtime/io/scheduled_io.rs:251 — ScheduledIo::wake has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AtomicWaker · ×1
  • AtomicWaker::do_register (cognitive 16) tokio/src/sync/task/atomic_waker.rs:175 — AtomicWaker::do_register has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 9). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ChunksTimeout · ×1
  • ChunksTimeout::poll_next (cognitive 16) tokio-stream/src/stream_ext/chunks_timeout.rs:48 — ChunksTimeout::poll_next has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×1
  • FileTooLong: multi_thread/worker.rs tokio/src/runtime/scheduler/multi_thread/worker.rs — FileTooLong — 727 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 227 over it, 1.45× 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.
D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×1
  • ClassTooLong: UdpSocket tokio/src/net/udp.rs:14 — ClassTooLong — 451 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 62 methods, 3 blocks, lines 127-2323. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 51 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyFields · ×1
  • TooManyFields: Builder tokio/src/runtime/builder.rs:55 — TooManyFields — 33 stored fields beside 35 methods. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 3 over it, 1.10× the bar. This is width in DATA, not behaviour: every reader that takes the whole type couples to all of its fields, so a change to any one of them is a change every reader has to be checked against. To reduce it, group the fields that are read together by the same callers into a smaller type of their own, and have this one hold that type as a single member — each reader then names only the group it uses.
D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×1
  • MethodTooLong: NotifiedProject.poll_notified tokio/src/sync/notify.rs:1105 — MethodTooLong — poll_notified runs 109 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 9 over it, 1.09× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling clique · ×1
  • Change coupling clique: stderr.rs, stdin.rs, stdout.rs tokio/src/io/stderr.rs — 3 files — `tokio/src/io/stderr.rs`, `tokio/src/io/stdin.rs`, `tokio/src/io/stdout.rs` — all change together with no explicit dependency: a fully-connected co-change clique, not 3 separate couplings. They share one concern (thin parallel siblings over a common abstraction), so extract the shared part into ONE unit and the whole clique's coupling clears at once — you do not need to break each pair individually.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) tokio/src/fs/open_options.rs:168 — tokio/src/fs/open_options.rs:168-185 | tokio/src/fs/open_options.rs:212-229 | tokio/src/fs/open_options.rs:285-302 | tokio/src/fs/open_options.rs:332-349 | tokio/src/fs/open_options.rs:382-399 | tokio/src/fs/open_options.rs:439-456 — These 6 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 6 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 6 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (53 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (53 lines × 2) tokio/src/runtime/time/wheel/level.rs:55 — tokio/src/runtime/time/wheel/level.rs:55-107 | tokio/src/runtime/time_alt/wheel/level.rs:56-108 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (49 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (49 lines × 2) tokio/src/fs/file.rs:833 — tokio/src/fs/file.rs:833-881 | tokio/src/fs/file.rs:913-961 — 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 (23 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) tokio-util/src/codec/any_delimiter_codec.rs:149 — tokio-util/src/codec/any_delimiter_codec.rs:149-171 | tokio-util/src/codec/lines_codec.rs:119-141 — 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 (22 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) tokio-util/src/util/memchr.rs:13 — tokio-util/src/util/memchr.rs:13-34 | tokio/src/util/memchr.rs:13-34 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) tokio/src/fs/file.rs:808 — tokio/src/fs/file.rs:808-825 | tokio/src/fs/file.rs:888-905 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:207 — tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:207-222 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:280-296 — 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 (14–16 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 4) tokio/src/runtime/handle.rs:353 — tokio/src/runtime/handle.rs:353-368 | tokio/src/runtime/handle.rs:385-398 | tokio/src/runtime/handle.rs:419-432 | tokio/src/runtime/runtime.rs:354-368 — there are 4 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–16 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10–16 lines × 2) tokio/src/net/unix/stream.rs:50 — tokio/src/net/unix/stream.rs:50-65 | tokio/src/net/unix/stream.rs:118-127 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) tokio/src/task/join_set.rs:503 — tokio/src/task/join_set.rs:503-518 | tokio/src/task/join_set.rs:562-577 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 3) tokio/src/fs/file.rs:774 — tokio/src/fs/file.rs:774-782 | tokio/src/fs/file.rs:852-861 | tokio/src/fs/file.rs:932-941 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) tokio/src/sync/mutex.rs:440 — tokio/src/sync/mutex.rs:440-448 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:448-456 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:831-839 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio/src/sync/mutex.rs` and `tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 34 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) tokio/src/fs/file.rs:675 — tokio/src/fs/file.rs:675-680 | tokio/src/fs/file.rs:773-778 | tokio/src/fs/file.rs:851-856 | tokio/src/fs/file.rs:931-936 — 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 (28 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) tokio-stream/src/wrappers/signal_unix.rs:34 — tokio-stream/src/wrappers/signal_unix.rs:34-61 | tokio-stream/src/wrappers/signal_windows.rs:35-121 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) tokio/src/sync/mutex.rs:630 — tokio/src/sync/mutex.rs:630-642 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:639-651 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:1011-1023 — before extracting anything, compare `tokio/src/sync/mutex.rs` and `tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 34 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 × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) tokio/src/sync/barrier.rs:77 — tokio/src/sync/barrier.rs:77-87 | tokio/src/sync/oneshot.rs:503-513 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:211-221 | tokio/src/sync/rwlock.rs:285-295 — there are 4 copies across 3 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Minor — 44 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×26
  • Orphaned file tokio-util/src/io/sync_bridge.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio-util/src/codec/framed.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio-util/src/codec/framed_impl.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio/src/io/read_buf.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio/src/process/unix/reap.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio/src/sync/barrier.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard_mapped.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio/src/util/trace.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio/src/signal/reusable_box.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio/src/loom/std/barrier.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio-util/src/codec/framed_write.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio-util/src/codec/framed_read.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_read_guard.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio-test/src/stream_mock.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio-util/src/future.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio-util/src/io/sink_writer.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio/src/io/util/take.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio/src/runtime/task/trace/tree.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio-stream/src/wrappers/watch.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio/src/fs/dir_builder.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio/src/io/join.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio/src/util/cacheline.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio-stream/src/wrappers/broadcast.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file tokio-util/src/future/with_cancellation_token.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • + 1 more in this group — see findings.md.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×2
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 5 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: tokio-stream/src/stream_ext/then.rs, tokio-stream/src/stream_ext/skip_while.rs, tokio-stream/src/stream_ext/take.rs, tokio-stream/src/stream_ext/skip.rs, tokio-stream/src/stream_ext/filter_map.rs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #2 — If anonymized user #2 becomes unavailable, 3 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: tokio/src/io/util/buf_writer.rs, tokio/src/io/util/async_seek_ext.rs, tokio/src/io/util/read_until.rs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×2
  • Duplicated predicate tokio/src/runtime/time/wheel/mod.rs:242 — `expiration.level == 0 && now != u64::MAX` appears character-identically in 2 files — tokio/src/runtime/time/wheel/mod.rs, tokio/src/runtime/time_alt/wheel/mod.rs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate tokio-stream/src/stream_ext/chain.rs:59 — `self.a.is_terminated() && self.b.is_terminated()` appears character-identically in 2 files — tokio-stream/src/stream_ext/chain.rs, tokio-stream/src/stream_ext/merge.rs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
D16 · Bus Factor · Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1
  • Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 11 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (21 single-owned of 277 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated, example/demo and scaffolding-template trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 277 of the 465 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #3 (2 file(s)), anonymized user #4 (2 file(s)), anonymized user #5 (1 file(s)), anonymized user #6 (1 file(s)), anonymized user #7 (1 file(s)), anonymized user #8 (1 file(s)) (+5 more) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above. The files folded here: tokio/src/signal/windows.rs, tokio/src/signal/registry.rs, tokio-util/src/sync/cancellation_token/tree_node.rs, tokio/src/runtime/task/trace/symbol.rs, tokio-util/src/task/spawn_pinned.rs, tokio-util/src/sync/mpsc.rs, tokio/src/io/util/buf_stream.rs, tokio-util/src/context.rs (+5 more).
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
  • Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 2 of 4 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `tokio` (93693 LoC, 431 module-visible types across 43 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1
  • Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 26 of 277 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated, example/demo and scaffolding-template trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 277 of the 465 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: tokio-util/src/io/sync_bridge.rs, tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard.rs, tokio-util/src/codec/framed.rs, tokio-util/src/codec/framed_impl.rs, tokio/src/io/read_buf.rs, tokio/src/process/unix/reap.rs, tokio/src/sync/barrier.rs, tokio/src/sync/rwlock/owned_write_guard_mapped.rs (and 18 more). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
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 15 % of tests are unit tests (352 unit vs 1947 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 2/4 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `tokio-macros`, `tokio-stream`.
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 — None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. 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.)
X7 · Silent fallback defaults · Silent fallback default on Err · ×1
  • Silent fallback default on Err tokio/src/runtime/context/blocking.rs:30 — `try_enter_blocking_region` turns every `Err` into `Some(BlockingRegionGuard::new())` — a failure becomes a plausible value and a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or propagate it with `?`. If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment on the arm or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.

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-cdc5664d421c46c39186dee1d0313150/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-cdc5664d421c46c39186dee1d0313150/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 --exclude *.arrow --exclude *.avro --exclude *.csv --exclude *.dat --exclude *.db --exclude *.feather --exclude *.geojson --exclude *.h5 --exclude *.hdf5 --exclude *.jsonl --exclude *.log --exclude *.ndjson --exclude *.npy --exclude *.npz --exclude *.orc --exclude *.parquet --exclude *.pickle --exclude *.pkl --exclude *.psv --exclude *.sqlite --exclude *.sqlite3 --exclude *.tfrecord --exclude *.tsv --exclude *.txt .186artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesnone (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)—none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Cargo manifest — not scanned yet).0—
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 Dependenciesnone (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)—none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Cargo manifest — not scanned yet).0—

Run 01a17533-0fa1-7556-9ac4-f9831a8812e8 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 187 · Warnings: 218 · Recommendations: 44 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 25-10-2026 @ 22:34 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