Public report of tw93/MiaoYan, published 26 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 reportMeasured 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, 26 October 2026, 09:17 UTC · Survey ID cd_7d1820cbf33b4c719b747457af8164c8
tw93/MiaoYan
Measured 26 October 2026, 09:10 UTC, at code version a5050a2
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 scoreWeak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Down 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.
A medium codebase: 36,041 lines of product code in 2 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.3 person-years · Weakest lens: Accessibility, 34
Findings by how serious they are
13 critical307 serious23 minor
32 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
26 October 2026, 09:10 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 ▸
51of 51 dimensions measured by tools.
326of 343 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 17 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
51dimensions across 7 lenses, read from 36,041 lines of product code in 2 projects.
tw93/MiaoYan falls short of our standard for production, in part because it has pages that don't say their language. It scores 47 out of 100 and is rated Weak, and five of its 13 critical findings are security problems in the build pipeline.
Accessibility, at 34, is the weakest lens and counts most in the score. The best first step is making the controls keyboard-usable, worth about 5 points. Adding automated security scanning comes next, worth about 4 points. Raising Accessibility to 70 would lift the score to about 58.
Four pipeline tools are referenced by a changeable name, so the build pipeline can be tampered with. One pipeline step runs a download nobody checks, and two sets of files in separate parts keep changing together, which points to hidden dependencies. Pinning each tool to an exact version, checking the download against a checksum and making the hidden dependencies explicit would close these risks. The two pages or frames without a title need a descriptive title.
The product code is 36,041 lines, about €37,000 to rebuild.
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 forThe 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.
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement Resources/DownView.bundle/ppt/plugin/notes/speaker-view.html
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement Resources/DownView.bundle/css/typography.css
Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard Resources/DownView.bundle/css/tocbot.css
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: 13 findings
These 13 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 12 October 2026, and are gone from this one.
€12,000 to €61,000, for 204 to 647 hours of work, about 0.3 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem
Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor
×0.7 at a score of 47. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size
Medium: 36,041 lines of product code
What it is not
Not a quotation: nobody has offered to build it for that. Not a valuation: it says nothing about what the business is worth. Not a certified figure: no professional has signed it as one.
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
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
Raises the score by about 3 points · Medium effort · Page structure
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 €37,000 to build again, about 0.3 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Accessibility, at 34 (Weak). Accessibility is about whether the interface is built so that everyone can use it, including people who can't see the screen or can't use a mouse. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Accessibility also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Accessibility grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Accessibility actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 5 points for medium effort. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort
What hard-to-read code costs each year · Cost
Four dimensions measure how easy the code is to work in: two measure how tangled its logic is, one how much of it is copied, and one how well each part sticks to a single job. In this codebase they average 6.4 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and Watchdog estimates the extra work at 4% to 9% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 27,630 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 112,055 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 10.9 to 65.4 engineer-days a year, and it grows as more code changes.
How this is estimated: The number of changed lines is measured from the history of the code. The rest rests on two assumptions of Watchdog's own: code scoring 8 out of 10 or more adds no extra work, and each point below 8 adds 2.5% to 5.6% to every change, never less than 2% to 5% and never more than 40% to 60% in all; and an engineer changes 150 to 400 lines in a day. The result is a range for planning, not a measurement.
Based on: Cyclomatic Complexity · Cognitive Complexity · Code Duplication · Cohesion (LCOM4) · the code's change history
What to do: Start with the files listed under Churn × Complexity Hotspots, which change often and are hard to read, because that is where the extra work is paid most often.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways, which only happens where the projects form a dependency cycle. A graph without cycles has none.
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.
9 modules, with 1 dependency between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.
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.
Packages~MiaoYanCore~MiaoYanCore uses repository, so a change to repository can break Packages~MiaoYanCore~MiaoYanCore, while a change to Packages~MiaoYanCore~MiaoYanCore can't break repository.
Position
Below the diagonal: Packages~MiaoYanCore~MiaoYanCore uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures
6
Medium
A05:2025 — Injection
5
High / Critical
Roadmap
First, ensure all custom controls are fully keyboard-operable and anchors have valid hrefs to fix immediate interaction barriers. Next, integrate static security analysis into the CI pipeline to prevent security regressions from merging, while simultaneously enforcing accessibility checks in your existing UI test suite to block a11y violations. Finally, correct the page structure by adding proper language, title, and landmark elements, and ensure every form control and button has a programmatic label for screen reader compatibility.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain your project already uses: assert accessibility in your UI test suite with your toolkit's own matcher (Flutter `meetsGuideline`, Espresso `AccessibilityChecks`, XCTest `performAccessibilityAudit`), then gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.
Keep implementation types off the public surface (Swift: leave it `internal` (the default) instead of `public`) — even for a small library, every public type is a stability contract.
Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
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 — 13
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 — 307
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 — 23
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 32
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. 51 of 51 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); none rely on LLM judgement. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 51 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 326 of 343 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
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: the Swift half could not be measured — the Swift suite in . produced no coverage export. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo. In the meantime, commit (or publish into the working tree) the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and the real number is read on the next scan. You can widen what we reach: optional: commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces, and 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 (.swift) and this repository declares a SwiftPM test suite (2 packages), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D19 Documentation Quality — 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 kind did not reach the 95 % precision gate in three adjudicated runs (docs/plans/deterministic-engine/adjudication/D19-sample3-v3.md), so by the pre-registered fallback it publishes no row until a re-measurement shows it does. The candidates are counted here, not reported as findings, and the score does not include them.
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.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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. `Business/HtmlManager.swift`, `Business/Markdown.swift`, `Business/Note.swift`, `Business/NoteAttachment.swift`, `Business/WikilinkIndex.swift`, … (+8 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
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.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Subject: 8 markup document(s) — HTML, Razor, JSX, Vue, Svelte or server templates. The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, a Dockerfile, an npm dev script, a web service's own toolchain entry point (cargo, go, dotnet, Python, Spring Boot), or an Android app's own Gradle wrapper (run on an emulator); an Apple or Flutter app needs a host it lacks. None applied, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
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 Swift 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 Swift 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.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust 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.
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.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust and Dart source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust or Dart 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.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python or Rust 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 Swift 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.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, 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.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Scala, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala, JavaScript, TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, 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.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Rust 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 Swift 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: 2 pattern(s) declared (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code) excluded 0 source file(s) from code-quality scoring. Declarations are the repo's own visible statement that a tree is machine-written or vendored — auditable in any diff, honored by GitHub the same way.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
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.
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").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
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.
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.
+ 46 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 4 bodies over 60 down to 60 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ViewController.handleKeyDown (cyclomatic 117), ShellWindowController.handleKeyDown (cyclomatic 93), MarkdownRuleHighlighter.highlightMarkdown (cyclomatic 89). — 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 5.8 to about 6.5/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 60; a cleaner split scores higher.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 84 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 1 body over 120 down to 120 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with ViewController.handleKeyDown (cognitive 161). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 4.3 to about 4.8/10.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 15 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with EditTextView.swift, ShellModel.swift, Storage.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 warning-level).
Resolve the 12 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with ViewController.swift, EditTextView.swift, ShellModel.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 warning-level).
Resolve the 11 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with EditTextView.swift, ShellModel.swift, Storage.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
36 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 2 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.
+ 19 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with HtmlManager.swift (2), ViewController+Action.swift, Storage.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with ViewController.swift (2), ViewController+Editor.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with VersionHistoryViewController.swift, CustomTextStorage.swift, MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
2 production modules (SwiftPM+Xcode), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; a workspace's implicit (product-name) dependency is not visible there; 1 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 1 of the 2 (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).
Off the main sequence: MiaoYanCore
What to do
Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Resolve the 26 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with ViewController.swift, EditTextView.swift, SidebarProjectView.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (26 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
328 test methods: 328 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality9.6 / 10Stronggated by 7 serious findings✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
Resolve the 7 Skipped test finding(s) in Test Quality — start with PrefsWindowControllerTests.swift (5), NoteSaveDebounceTests.swift, StorageRelocationTests.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.
Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.
2 outdated direct SwiftPM dependencies, 0 pinning defect(s). SwiftPM has no package registry: a dependency is a repository URL and its releases are that repository's semver tags, so currency is answered by listing tags rather than by querying an index. Only a newer tag on the SAME MAJOR is reported — a `from:` requirement admits everything below the next major and nothing above it, so a major crossing needs a Package.swift edit rather than an update, and naming the update as its remedy would be wrong. Whether any dependency is DEPRECATED or ABANDONED is not graded and cannot be: a repository publishes no such marker, and there is no registry that could carry one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question.
Outdated: sparkle · ×2
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
0 of 5 SwiftPM package(s) use a banned license. SwiftPM has no package registry, so each package's licence is the one its repository declares: 4 of them read from the licence file the repository carries at the revision REDACTED pins, and 1 — unpinned, or whose licence file could not be read or named — from api.deps.dev, which reports the licence the repository declares today. Graded: every package a committed REDACTED pins, direct and transitive, and every declared dependency none pins. 1 of them declare no licence that matches a known SPDX licence; that is missing data, not a violation, and none of them is charged.
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.
Top hotspots: Shell/ShellWindowController.swift (20×93=1860); Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift (14×117=1638); Shell/ShellRootView.swift (26×39=1014) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: Shell/ShellModel.swift (23 of 32 changes were fixes); Business/Note.swift (12 of 18 changes were fixes); Helpers/UserDefaultsManagement.swift (9 of 12 changes were fixes)
Resolve the 18 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with ShellModel.swift, Note.swift, UserDefaultsManagement.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (18 warning-level).
Resolve the 14 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with ShellWindowController.swift, ViewController+Action.swift, ShellRootView.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor9.1 / 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.
7 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is Helpers/TypographyCleaner.swift. Counted over 88 of the 119 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
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
1 deducted task-comment markers across 36041 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
Resolve the 1 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ViewController+Action.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
1 of 2 build units (SwiftPM) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
What to do
Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
5 finding(s): 0 critical, 5 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 4 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. semgrep hit a parse error in 5 file(s) — `Business/Note.swift` (line 994), `MiaoYanTests/PrefsWindowControllerTests.swift`, `Shell/ShellWindowController.swift` (line 892, line 896), `Views/EditTextView.swift` (line 59, line 63, line 73, …), `scripts/release-ci/generate_release_content.sh` (lines 92–462) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 4 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 (4 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.
Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.
Resolve the 2 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 88 of the 119 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
Resolve the 2 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with String+.swift, ViewController.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.
Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.
No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.
AC2 · Forms & labels3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.
Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. — Resources/DownView.bundle/ppt/plugin/notes/speaker-view.html:337
What to do
Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC3 · Page structure3.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.
Coverage: Population: the PARSED MARKUP documents (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx). The page-level checks — lang, title, single main landmark — fire ONCE PER FULL DOCUMENT (an <html> root) and never on a partial or component fragment, so a repo of fragments is assessed only on the per-element checks (heading order, table headers, iframe titles, meta-refresh, zoom). Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en"). (×2) — Resources/DownView.bundle/index.html:2, Resources/DownView.bundle/ppt.html:2
A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>. (×2) — Resources/DownView.bundle/index.html:2, Resources/DownView.bundle/ppt.html:2
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×3) — Resources/DownView.bundle/index.html:2, Resources/DownView.bundle/ppt.html:2, Resources/DownView.bundle/ppt/plugin/notes/speaker-view.html:4
What to do
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no element the repo's own CSS styles `cursor: pointer` without giving it any of the three, no unfocusable element whose only binding is a mouse enter/leave pair or a double-click, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor, no placeholder-href (#/javascript) link acting as a button. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.
Coverage: Population: elements that pose a keyboard-semantics question, in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) — a non-natively-interactive element carrying a click handler, a double-click or hover enter/leave binding, a pointer-only gesture on a tabindex="0" element, or `cursor: pointer` from the repo's own CSS; an href-less or placeholder-href (#, javascript:) anchor; and any element with a positive tabindex. Natively interactive elements used correctly (<button>, <a href>, form controls) are NOT in the population — there is nothing to judge — so a page of nothing but correct controls gives AC4 nothing to measure. Keyboard reachability is judged from the markup, never from a rendered page. ★ An interactive element declared in a tagged-template (html`…`) or hyperscript frontend is NOT in this population — no producer reads either — so an empty population is reported as an analyzer gap, never as "this repository has no interactive elements".
The repo's own CSS styles .toc-hover-trigger with `cursor: pointer`, so this <div> is a control — but it has no role, no tabindex="0" and no key handler, so it can only be reached with a mouse. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler. — Resources/DownView.bundle/index.html:101
What to do
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.
Coverage: Population: elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) that carry a role or an aria-* attribute; roles and token values are checked against the ARIA enums exhaustively within that set. An expression-valued (dynamic) role or aria-* value is skipped rather than guessed, and markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.
Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
`#speaker-layout select:focus` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — Resources/DownView.bundle/ppt/plugin/notes/speaker-view.html:210
`.heti summary` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — Resources/DownView.bundle/css/typography.css:540
`.pin-icon` moves (`transition: transform 0.12s ease-out`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — Resources/DownView.bundle/css/tocbot.css:208
What to do
Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.
Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.
Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.
No accessibility enforcement found — no accessibility linting at author time and no automated accessibility check in tests or CI. Add your UI toolkit's own accessibility assertion to the test suite (Flutter `meetsGuideline`, Espresso `AccessibilityChecks`, XCTest `performAccessibilityAudit`), then gate that test in the pipeline. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 8 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
What to do
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain your project already uses: assert accessibility in your UI test suite with your toolkit's own matcher (Flutter `meetsGuideline`, Espresso `AccessibilityChecks`, XCTest `performAccessibilityAudit`), then gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.
Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.
Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.
Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.
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
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.
Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.
Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
What to do
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P10 · Library API & versioning2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.
Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No explicit version was found for the SwiftPM library declared by `Package.swift`. This check read nothing in Package.swift, which has no version field, and a CHANGELOG/CHANGES/HISTORY/NEWS/RELEASES file with a semver heading, or release tooling (changesets, release-please, semantic-release, goreleaser, cargo-release, bump2version, standard-version, git-cliff) in the library's directory or at the repository root, or a semver release tag (or a Drupal `8.x-1.2` release tag) in the repository. A version computed where none of those can see is invisible here. A published library needs explicit semantic versioning so consumers can reason about breaking changes. — Packages/MiaoYanCore/Package.swift
What to do
Keep implementation types off the public surface (Swift: leave it `internal` (the default) instead of `public`) — even for a small library, every public type is a stability contract.
Declare the version where the ecosystem expects it, or keep a CHANGELOG with semver release headings, and follow semver for breaking changes.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (swift-otel with swift-distributed-tracing) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your Vapor/Hummingbird router) for operability.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 5769 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene3.0 / 10Weak✓ 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.
The changelog this check read carries 1 versioned entry, against a bar of 3. Counted as either the distinct `x.y.z` versions it names (a link's target is not counted) or its version-shaped section headings (`## [1.2.0]`, `## V14.x.x`, `## Updates in 8.0.x`), whichever is the larger — so a log sectioned by minor series counts its sections, not its individual patch numbers. Entries recorded somewhere this check does not read — release notes generated at tag time from a generator config it did not recognise, or a log kept outside the repository — are not counted here, and this row is about what is re-findable in the tree rather than about how often you release.
What to do
Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub.
Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.
Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
What to do
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 11 use(s) across 41,299 production line(s) (~0.3/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Swift: on hot paths, reserveCapacity before appending, use ContiguousArray for class-element arrays, work in place with withUnsafeBufferPointer/withUnsafeTemporaryAllocation, and make large values ~Copyable with borrowing/consuming parameters.
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.
Other · Security — Only what this repository's own non-C# files could be read for was assessed — and because this repository commits the configuration that serves its own HTTP surface, that configuration could be read in full for the security response headers it sets. Nothing else in this dimension was assessed: the transport, cookie, input-validation and crypto controls are read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository’s language, so their absence here is not a finding about this repository.
Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. 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 `vercel.json` 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.) — vercel.json: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.
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.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.
Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×4) — Helpers/ImagesProcessor.swift:228, Business/Note.swift:824, Business/Storage.swift:1395, …
`catch` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. (×3) — Extensions/MPreviewView+Export.swift:798, Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:1278, Business/Storage.swift:1305
What to do
Swallowed exception (empty catch)
Do you agree with this assessment?
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
Statically assessed 12 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (22%; ≈24% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 43 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Unscored — 3 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 — 5 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — 1 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 — 2 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 63 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 image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's Swift imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No Swift request handler (a Vapor, Hummingbird, Kitura, Swifter or Perfect route handler, as a method or a registered closure) is declared, so no state is shared between request threads. TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named property (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a SwiftData @Model, a Core Data, Realm, GRDB or Fluent type, a GRDB or SQLite.swift column, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (CoreData, SwiftData, GRDB, RealmSwift, SQLite, Firebase, …) imported 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 property (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a SwiftData @Model, a Core Data, Realm, GRDB or Fluent type, a GRDB or SQLite.swift column, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (CoreData, SwiftData, GRDB, RealmSwift, SQLite, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .swift 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.
D19 Documentation Quality — D19 withholds "Documentation: no overview": 1 candidate(s) were measured and not published.
D21 Naming Consistency — Naming consistency is measured on C# only; JavaScript, Swift, html not measured.
D22 Internal API Consistency — API consistency is measured on C# only; the exposed Swift 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 .rb, .swift, 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 (.swift), 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.
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) — 13 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
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 measured — Swift suite
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and this analysis resolves a call's owner only where the receiver's type is written down in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — 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 Swift source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `swift test --enable-code-coverage` (SwiftPM) or `xcodebuild test -scheme <YourScheme> -enableCodeCoverage YES` (an .xcodeproj/.xcworkspace suite), then `xcrun llvm-cov export -format=lcov`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for tinybench, mitata, benchmark.js, benny or vitest `bench(...)` calls in files that import them (or `*.bench.*` files), or one of those in a package.json, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — 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
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — 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 — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check 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.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — Not applicable: this check looks for a pattern guard or `case` label that increments, decrements or assigns while the switch is deciding whether it matches, and in this repository's languages none can. Swift has no `++` or `--`, and an assignment yields `()`, which cannot be an operand of `&&`, `||` or `?:` nor the Bool a `case … where` clause needs. 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
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — Not applicable: this check looks for a loop whose body adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is walking, invalidating the enumerator it holds, and in this repository's languages that cannot happen. Swift's `Array`, `Dictionary` and `Set` are values: `for x in items` walks the copy taken when the loop starts, so a body that adds to or removes from `items` changes a different value, nothing is invalidated, and every original element is still visited. This repository's Swift names no Foundation mutable collection (`NSMutableArray` and kin), the one kind a Swift loop can walk by reference. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — 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.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
<html> without a lang Resources/DownView.bundle/index.html:2— The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en").
<html> without a lang Resources/DownView.bundle/ppt.html:2— The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en").
AC3 · Page structure· Document without a <title> · ×2
Document without a <title> Resources/DownView.bundle/index.html:2— A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>.
Document without a <title> Resources/DownView.bundle/ppt.html:2— A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: String+.swift ↔ EditTextView.swift Extensions/String+.swift:1— `Extensions/String+.swift` (context Extensions) and `Views/EditTextView.swift` (context Views) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 54% of the time (7 of the 13 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 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `31fb15cd` :construction: Refactoring markdown code (at that commit the files were still `Mac/Extensions/String+.swift` and `Mac/View/EditTextView.swift`); `5cca7994` :bug: Do not process email links additionally (at that commit the files were still `Mac/Extensions/String+.swift` and `Mac/View/EditTextView.swift`); `59cff8a3` :bug: 修复10.15兼容问题 (at that commit the files were still `Common/Shared/Extensions/String+.swift` and `Mac/View/EditTextView.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: ViewController.swift ↔ Toast.swift Controllers/ViewController.swift:1— `Controllers/ViewController.swift` (context Controllers) and `Views/Toast.swift` (context Views) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 53% of the time (8 of the 15 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `aa274e00` feat: add version history, soft delete to system Trash, and macOS 26 …; `a4c35c50` Support for cleaning isolated images and files; `89232e29` :bug: 修复toast易crash/优化vc的引用代码 (at that commit the files were still `Mac/ViewController.swift` and `Mac/View/Toast.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.
AC2 · Forms & labels· <select> without a programmatic label · ×1
<select> without a programmatic label Resources/DownView.bundle/ppt/plugin/notes/speaker-view.html:337— This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
AC4 · Keyboard semantics· Clickable element isn't keyboard-operable · ×1
Clickable element isn't keyboard-operable Resources/DownView.bundle/index.html:101— The repo's own CSS styles .toc-hover-trigger with `cursor: pointer`, so this <div> is a control — but it has no role, no tabindex="0" and no key handler, so it can only be reached with a mouse. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler.
Low cohesion: ViewController (LCOM4 20) Controllers/ViewController.swift:11— ViewController's methods fall into 20 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 20 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: EditTextView (LCOM4 18) Views/EditTextView.swift:39— EditTextView's methods fall into 18 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 18 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: SidebarProjectView (LCOM4 17) Views/SidebarProjectView.swift:36— SidebarProjectView's methods fall into 17 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 17 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: NotesTableView (LCOM4 12) Views/NotesTableView.swift:4— NotesTableView's methods fall into 12 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 12 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: String (LCOM4 12) Business/Markdown.swift:4— String's methods fall into 12 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 12 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: MPreviewView (LCOM4 11) Views/MPreviewView.swift:13— MPreviewView's methods fall into 11 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 11 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: AppDelegate (LCOM4 8) Controllers/AppDelegate.swift:6— AppDelegate'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: Note (LCOM4 7) Business/Note.swift:7— Note's methods fall into 7 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 7 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: MainWindowController (LCOM4 7) Controllers/MainWindowController.swift:3— MainWindowController's methods fall into 7 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 7 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: EditorSplitView (LCOM4 7) Views/EditorSplitView.swift:3— EditorSplitView's methods fall into 7 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 7 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: SearchTextField (LCOM4 7) Views/SearchTextField.swift:56— SearchTextField's methods fall into 7 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 7 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: EditorMenuManager (LCOM4 6) Helpers/EditorMenuManager.swift:3— EditorMenuManager'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: TitleTextField (LCOM4 6) Views/TitleTextField.swift:4— TitleTextField'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: NSImage (LCOM4 6) Extensions/NSImage+.swift:3— NSImage'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: URL (LCOM4 6) Extensions/URL+.swift:4— URL'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: Sidebar (LCOM4 5) Business/Sidebar.swift:5— Sidebar'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: Storage (LCOM4 5) Business/Storage.swift:14— Storage'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: OutlineHeaderView (LCOM4 5) Views/OutlineHeaderView.swift:3— OutlineHeaderView'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: PrefsDropdown (LCOM4 5) Views/PrefsControls.swift:199— PrefsDropdown'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: SidebarCellView (LCOM4 5) Views/SidebarCellView.swift:57— SidebarCellView'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: Project (LCOM4 4) Business/Project.swift:3— Project'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: BasePrefsViewController (LCOM4 4) Controllers/BasePrefsViewController.swift:6— BasePrefsViewController'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: EditorPrefsViewController (LCOM4 4) Controllers/EditorPrefsViewController.swift:3— EditorPrefsViewController'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: PrefsWindowController (LCOM4 4) Controllers/PrefsWindowController.swift:5— PrefsWindowController'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: VersionHistoryViewController (LCOM4 4) Controllers/VersionHistoryViewController.swift:102— VersionHistoryViewController'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.
Repeated repair: Shell/ShellModel.swift Shell/ShellModel.swift:713— Shell/ShellModel.swift changed 32 times in last 90 days and 23 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 14 (its worst body is ShellModel.setPresenting at line 713), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(copy): say Trash where things go to the Trash”; “fix(copy): shorter toasts, dialogs and settings rows”; “fix(shell): hold the header's mode buttons while an export runs”; “fix: keep a note in its folder when its title is only spaces”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Shell/ShellModel.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Business/Note.swift Business/Note.swift:649— Business/Note.swift changed 18 times in last 90 days and 12 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 11 (its worst body is Note.executeSave at line 649), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix: keep backlinks current after renames, deletes and outside edits”; “fix: keep a note in its folder when its title is only spaces”; “fix: stop reporting Save Failed after a save that worked”; “fix: close the data-safety and preview gaps found since 4.5”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Business/Note.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Helpers/UserDefaultsManagement.swift Helpers/UserDefaultsManagement.swift:356— Helpers/UserDefaultsManagement.swift changed 12 times in last 90 days and 9 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 13 (its worst body is UserDefaultsManagement.migrateFontDefaultsIfNeeded at line 356), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(copy): say Trash where things go to the Trash”; “fix(sidebar): reopen the folder a V4.5.0 install left”; “fix: stop a missing notes folder flooding the diagnostics log”; “fix: reopen the sidebar on the folder you left, subfolders included”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Helpers/UserDefaultsManagement.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Extensions/MPreviewView+Export.swift Extensions/MPreviewView+Export.swift:996— Extensions/MPreviewView+Export.swift changed 12 times in last 90 days and 9 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 14 (its worst body is MPreviewView.buildPdfOutline at line 996), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(shell): match the storyboard window's title, reopening and export guards”; “fix(export): show the pdf saved toast once, after the file is written”; “fix: unstick exports after a cancelled save panel; keep unreadable notes read-only”; “fix: close the data-safety and preview gaps found since 4.5”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Extensions/MPreviewView+Export.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Business/FontCatalog.swift Business/FontCatalog.swift:177— Business/FontCatalog.swift changed 11 times in last 90 days and 8 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 7 (its worst body is Cache.rebuildIfNeeded at line 177), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(shell): keep the editor in step with the storyboard editor”; “fix: make TsangerJinKai02 the default face again without bundling it”; “fix: follow the text font for code and restore the preview weight”; “fix: refresh installed fonts when opening font menus”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Business/FontCatalog.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Helpers/FileSystemEventManager.swift Helpers/FileSystemEventManager.swift:45— Helpers/FileSystemEventManager.swift changed 10 times in last 90 days and 8 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 13 (its worst body is FileSystemEventManager.handleFileSystemEvent at line 45), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(copy): shorter toasts, dialogs and settings rows”; “fix: list notes created in a library reached through a symlink”; “fix(settings): save the folder bookmark first and show focus rings”; “fix: close the data-safety and preview gaps found since 4.5”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Helpers/FileSystemEventManager.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Controllers/GeneralPrefsViewController.swift Controllers/GeneralPrefsViewController.swift:109— Controllers/GeneralPrefsViewController.swift changed 7 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 8 (its worst body is GeneralPrefsViewController.appearanceChanged at line 109), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(copy): shorter toasts, dialogs and settings rows”; “fix(settings): save the folder bookmark first and show focus rings”; “fix(shell): apply interface font and editor mode changes from Settings live”; “fix: tidy the settings window layout”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Controllers/GeneralPrefsViewController.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Packages/MiaoYanCore/Sources/MiaoYanCore/NotePreview.swift Packages/MiaoYanCore/Sources/MiaoYanCore/NotePreview.swift:66— Packages/MiaoYanCore/Sources/MiaoYanCore/NotePreview.swift changed 5 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 14 (its worst body is NotePreview.stripNoise at line 66), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(core): drop footnote markers from previews”; “fix(core): show card previews for GBK, Big5 and UTF-16 notes”; “fix: strip only YAML frontmatter, so a deck opening with --- keeps its first slide”; “fix: stop card previews repeating the note's title”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Packages/MiaoYanCore/Sources/MiaoYanCore/NotePreview.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Helpers/ClipboardManager.swift Helpers/ClipboardManager.swift:410— Helpers/ClipboardManager.swift changed 4 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 12 (its worst body is ClipboardManager.replacePlaceholderWithURL at line 410), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(copy): shorter toasts, dialogs and settings rows”; “fix: close the data-safety and preview gaps found since 4.5”; “fix: paste images in the shell and keep a PicGo upload's place”; “fix: copy every range of a multi-range selection”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Helpers/ClipboardManager.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Business/WikilinkIndex.swift Business/WikilinkIndex.swift:58— Business/WikilinkIndex.swift changed 5 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 13 (its worst body is WikilinkIndex.readEntries at line 58), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix: keep backlinks current after renames, deletes and outside edits”; “fix: build backlinks from notes at any depth under the library”; “fix: build backlinks from every note, opened or not”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Business/WikilinkIndex.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Shell/ShellModel+Folders.swift Shell/ShellModel+Folders.swift:137— Shell/ShellModel+Folders.swift changed 5 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 10 (its worst body is ShellModel.confirmDeleteFolder at line 137), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(copy): say Trash where things go to the Trash”; “fix(shell): match the storyboard window's title, reopening and export guards”; “fix(shell): bring the sidebar in line with the storyboard sidebar”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Shell/ShellModel+Folders.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Controllers/EditorPrefsViewController.swift Controllers/EditorPrefsViewController.swift:125— Controllers/EditorPrefsViewController.swift changed 5 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 6 (its worst body is EditorPrefsViewController.uploadServiceChanged at line 125), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(copy): shorter toasts, dialogs and settings rows”; “fix(shell): guard text focus and fill the remaining parity gaps”; “fix: tidy the settings window layout”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Controllers/EditorPrefsViewController.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Controllers/ViewController+Export.swift Controllers/ViewController+Export.swift:5— Controllers/ViewController+Export.swift changed 4 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 5 (its worst body is ViewController.exportFile at line 5), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(copy): shorter toasts, dialogs and settings rows”; “fix: unstick exports after a cancelled save panel; keep unreadable notes read-only”; “fix: make HTML export work without a preview and carry its images”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Controllers/ViewController+Export.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Controllers/AppDelegate+URLRoutes.swift Controllers/AppDelegate+URLRoutes.swift:23— Controllers/AppDelegate+URLRoutes.swift changed 4 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 11 (its worst body is AppDelegate.application at line 23), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(shell): match the storyboard window's title, reopening and export guards”; “fix: close the data-safety and preview gaps found since 4.5”; “fix: run a link that launched the app once, goto included”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Controllers/AppDelegate+URLRoutes.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Helpers/PdfExportController.swift Helpers/PdfExportController.swift:288— Helpers/PdfExportController.swift changed 4 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 6 (its worst body is PdfExportController.handlePrintCompletion at line 288), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(export): show the pdf saved toast once, after the file is written”; “fix: close the data-safety and preview gaps found since 4.5”; “fix: make HTML export work without a preview and carry its images”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Helpers/PdfExportController.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Business/NoteVersionManager.swift Business/NoteVersionManager.swift:35— Business/NoteVersionManager.swift changed 4 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 9 (its worst body is NoteVersionManager.saveVersion at line 35), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix: close the data-safety and preview gaps found since 4.5”; “fix: stop a missing notes folder flooding the diagnostics log”; “fix: carry a note's version history through renames, moves and the Trash”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Business/NoteVersionManager.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Business/FontConfiguration.swift Business/FontConfiguration.swift:47— Business/FontConfiguration.swift changed 4 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 3 (its worst body is FontConfiguration.textFont at line 47), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix: make TsangerJinKai02 the default face again without bundling it”; “fix: follow the text font for code and restore the preview weight”; “fix: replace bundled commercial font with system typography”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Business/FontConfiguration.swift`: 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.
Repeated repair: Views/MPreviewHandlers.swift Views/MPreviewHandlers.swift:14— Views/MPreviewHandlers.swift changed 3 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 11 (its worst body is HandlerCheckbox.userContentController at line 14), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix: close the data-safety and preview gaps found since 4.5”; “fix: let tests call the checkbox line lookup under Swift 6.1”; “fix: toggle the checkbox that was clicked in the preview”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Views/MPreviewHandlers.swift`: 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.
FileTooLong: Views/EditTextView.swift Views/EditTextView.swift— FileTooLong — 1288 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 98% of them inside a single declaration: EditTextView (40-2000). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 788 over it, 2.58× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: Shell/ShellModel.swift Shell/ShellModel.swift— FileTooLong — 1093 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 99% of them inside a single declaration: ShellModel (11-1771). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 593 over it, 2.19× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: Business/Storage.swift Business/Storage.swift— FileTooLong — 1008 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 99% of them inside a single declaration: Storage (15-1700). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 508 over it, 2.02× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift— FileTooLong — 954 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 454 over it, 1.91× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Shell/ShellWindowController.swift Shell/ShellWindowController.swift— FileTooLong — 948 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 84% of them inside a single declaration: ShellWindowController (11-1225). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 448 over it, 1.90× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift— FileTooLong — 941 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 441 over it, 1.88× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Controllers/ViewController.swift Controllers/ViewController.swift— FileTooLong — 906 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 99% of them inside a single declaration: ViewController (12-1428). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 406 over it, 1.81× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: Views/SidebarProjectView.swift Views/SidebarProjectView.swift— FileTooLong — 858 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 97% of them inside a single declaration: SidebarProjectView (36-1442). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 358 over it, 1.72× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: Business/Note.swift Business/Note.swift— FileTooLong — 787 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 99% of them inside a single declaration: Note (8-1355). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 287 over it, 1.57× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: Views/MPreviewView.swift Views/MPreviewView.swift— FileTooLong — 779 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 99% of them inside a single declaration: MPreviewView (14-1191). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 279 over it, 1.56× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: Shell/ShellRootView.swift Shell/ShellRootView.swift— FileTooLong — 744 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 244 over it, 1.49× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Helpers/UserDefaultsManagement.swift Helpers/UserDefaultsManagement.swift— FileTooLong — 737 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 92% of them inside a single declaration: UserDefaultsManagement (87-1114). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 237 over it, 1.47× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: Extensions/MPreviewView+Export.swift Extensions/MPreviewView+Export.swift— FileTooLong — 711 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 211 over it, 1.42× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Helpers/NotesTextProcessor.swift Helpers/NotesTextProcessor.swift— FileTooLong — 653 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 75% of them inside a single declaration: NotesTextProcessor (5-809). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 153 over it, 1.31× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: Business/HtmlManager.swift Business/HtmlManager.swift— FileTooLong — 636 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 99% of them inside a single declaration: HtmlManager (10-1015). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 136 over it, 1.27× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
Hotspot: Shell/ShellWindowController.swift Shell/ShellWindowController.swift:666— Shell/ShellWindowController.swift changed 20 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 93 in ShellWindowController.handleKeyDown at line 666. 16 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Shell/ShellWindowController.swift`: 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: Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:1300— Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift changed 14 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 117 in ViewController.handleKeyDown at line 1300. 12 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift`: 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: Shell/ShellRootView.swift Shell/ShellRootView.swift:232— Shell/ShellRootView.swift changed 26 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 39 in ShellSidebarRow.body at line 232. 15 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Shell/ShellRootView.swift`: 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: Views/EditTextView.swift Views/EditTextView.swift:541— Views/EditTextView.swift changed 21 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 41 in EditTextView.applyNoteContent at line 541. 12 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Views/EditTextView.swift`: 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: Controllers/ViewController.swift Controllers/ViewController.swift:701— Controllers/ViewController.swift changed 18 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 33 in ViewController.validateMenuItem at line 701. 14 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Controllers/ViewController.swift`: 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: Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:58— Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift changed 6 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 89 in MarkdownRuleHighlighter.highlightMarkdown at line 58. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 4 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift`: 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: Controllers/TypographyPrefsViewController.swift Controllers/TypographyPrefsViewController.swift:53— Controllers/TypographyPrefsViewController.swift changed 19 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in TypographyPrefsViewController.setupFontPopUp at line 53. 11 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Controllers/TypographyPrefsViewController.swift`: 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: Business/Storage.swift Business/Storage.swift:824— Business/Storage.swift changed 16 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in Storage.loadMissingNotes at line 824. 11 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Business/Storage.swift`: 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: Views/MPreviewView.swift Views/MPreviewView.swift:826— Views/MPreviewView.swift changed 9 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 26 in MPreviewView.updateContent at line 826. 7 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Views/MPreviewView.swift`: 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: Controllers/AppDelegate.swift Controllers/AppDelegate.swift:495— Controllers/AppDelegate.swift changed 12 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in AppDelegate.addGlobalKeyboardMonitor at line 495. 8 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Controllers/AppDelegate.swift`: 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: Views/NotesTableView.swift Views/NotesTableView.swift:232— Views/NotesTableView.swift changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 25 in NotesTableView.handleSelectionChange at line 232. 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 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Views/NotesTableView.swift`: 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: Shell/ShellEditor.swift Shell/ShellEditor.swift:460— Shell/ShellEditor.swift changed 9 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in ShellEditorController.format at line 460. 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 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Shell/ShellEditor.swift`: 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: Business/Markdown.swift Business/Markdown.swift:142— Business/Markdown.swift changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 27 in Markdown.swift.isCurrencyDollar at line 142. 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 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Business/Markdown.swift`: 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: Helpers/EditorMenuManager.swift Helpers/EditorMenuManager.swift:26— Helpers/EditorMenuManager.swift changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in EditorMenuManager.performFormattingAction at line 26. 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 2026-07-28..2026-10-26, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-28 16:59:15 +08:00' --until='2026-10-26 16:59:15 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Helpers/EditorMenuManager.swift`: 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.
TooManyMethods: ViewController Controllers/ViewController.swift:11— TooManyMethods — 242 methods, declared across 6 files: Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift (69), Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift (61), Controllers/ViewController+Data.swift (37), Controllers/ViewController+Layout.swift (34), +2 more file(s). The bar is 30 methods; this is 212 over it, 8.07× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: EditTextView Views/EditTextView.swift:39— TooManyMethods — 117 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 87 over it, 3.90× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: ShellModel Shell/ShellModel.swift:8— TooManyMethods — 108 methods, declared across 3 files: Shell/ShellModel.swift (89), Shell/ShellModel+Folders.swift (14), Shell/ShellModel+Export.swift (5). The bar is 30 methods; this is 78 over it, 3.60× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Note Business/Note.swift:7— TooManyMethods — 96 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 66 over it, 3.20× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Storage Business/Storage.swift:14— TooManyMethods — 86 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 56 over it, 2.87× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: ShellWindowController Shell/ShellWindowController.swift:10— TooManyMethods — 84 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 54 over it, 2.80× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: MPreviewView Views/MPreviewView.swift:13— TooManyMethods — 79 methods, declared across 3 files: Views/MPreviewView.swift (34), Extensions/MPreviewView+Export.swift (28), Views/MPreviewView+Search.swift (17). The bar is 30 methods; this is 49 over it, 2.63× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: SidebarProjectView Views/SidebarProjectView.swift:36— TooManyMethods — 71 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 41 over it, 2.37× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: AppDelegate Controllers/AppDelegate.swift:6— TooManyMethods — 48 methods, declared across 3 files: Controllers/AppDelegate.swift (31), Controllers/AppDelegate+URLRoutes.swift (15), Controllers/AppDelegate+Lifecycle.swift (2). The bar is 30 methods; this is 18 over it, 1.60× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: NotesTableView Views/NotesTableView.swift:4— TooManyMethods — 41 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 11 over it, 1.37× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: TextFormatter Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:9— TooManyMethods — 36 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 6 over it, 1.20× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: HtmlManager Business/HtmlManager.swift:10— TooManyMethods — 35 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 5 over it, 1.17× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: EditTextView Views/EditTextView.swift:39— ClassTooLong — 1258 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 117 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 858 over it, 3.15× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: ShellModel Shell/ShellModel.swift:8— ClassTooLong — 1080 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 108 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 680 over it, 2.70× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Storage Business/Storage.swift:14— ClassTooLong — 997 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 86 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 597 over it, 2.49× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: ViewController Controllers/ViewController.swift:11— ClassTooLong — 898 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 242 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 498 over it, 2.25× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: SidebarProjectView Views/SidebarProjectView.swift:36— ClassTooLong — 834 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 71 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 434 over it, 2.09× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: ShellWindowController Shell/ShellWindowController.swift:10— ClassTooLong — 797 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 84 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 397 over it, 1.99× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Note Business/Note.swift:7— ClassTooLong — 781 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 96 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 381 over it, 1.95× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: MPreviewView Views/MPreviewView.swift:13— ClassTooLong — 771 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 79 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 371 over it, 1.93× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: UserDefaultsManagement Helpers/UserDefaultsManagement.swift:86— ClassTooLong — 680 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 11 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 280 over it, 1.70× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: HtmlManager Business/HtmlManager.swift:10— ClassTooLong — 630 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 35 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 230 over it, 1.58× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: NotesTextProcessor Helpers/NotesTextProcessor.swift:4— ClassTooLong — 490 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 28 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 90 over it, 1.23× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
MethodTooLong: MarkdownRuleHighlighter.highlightMarkdown Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:58— MethodTooLong — highlightMarkdown runs 266 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 166 over it, 2.66× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: ViewController.handleKeyDown Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:1300— MethodTooLong — handleKeyDown runs 171 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 71 over it, 1.71× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: ViewController.configureLayout Controllers/ViewController.swift:778— MethodTooLong — configureLayout runs 166 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 66 over it, 1.66× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: ShellWindowController.handleKeyDown Shell/ShellWindowController.swift:666— MethodTooLong — handleKeyDown runs 127 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 27 over it, 1.27× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: ViewController.disablePreview Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:242— MethodTooLong — disablePreview runs 126 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 26 over it, 1.26× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: HtmlManager.paginatedPrintCSS Business/HtmlManager.swift:64— MethodTooLong — paginatedPrintCSS runs 122 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 22 over it, 1.22× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: EditTextView.applyNoteContent Views/EditTextView.swift:541— MethodTooLong — applyNoteContent runs 106 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 6 over it, 1.06× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Business/HtmlManager.swift:464— Business/HtmlManager.swift:464-468 | Business/HtmlManager.swift:550-554 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Business/HtmlManager.swift:464` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:203— Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:203-207 | Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:218-222 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:203` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Business/HtmlManager.swift:845— Business/HtmlManager.swift:845-849 | Business/Markdown.swift:397-401 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Business/HtmlManager.swift:845` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Business/Storage.swift:104— Business/Storage.swift:104-108 | Shell/ShellModel.swift:458-462 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Business/Storage.swift:104` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Helpers/CustomTextStorage.swift:204— Helpers/CustomTextStorage.swift:204-208 | Helpers/CustomTextStorage.swift:217-221 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) Helpers/ImagesProcessor.swift:228— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) Business/Note.swift:824— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) Business/Storage.swift:1395— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) Business/Storage.swift:1565— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
AC3 · Page structure· Page without a main landmark · ×3
Page without a main landmark Resources/DownView.bundle/index.html:2— No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark Resources/DownView.bundle/ppt.html:2— No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark Resources/DownView.bundle/ppt/plugin/notes/speaker-view.html:4— No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:304— Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:304-315 | Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:405-416 — 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) Controllers/ViewController.swift:250— Controllers/ViewController.swift:250-261 | Controllers/ViewController.swift:263-274 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Controllers/ViewController.swift:250` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Controllers/ViewController.swift:281— Controllers/ViewController.swift:281-292 | Controllers/ViewController.swift:294-305 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Controllers/ViewController.swift:281` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Controllers/VersionHistoryViewController.swift:563— Controllers/VersionHistoryViewController.swift:563-569 | Views/SidebarTableRowView.swift:38-44 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Helpers/CustomTextStorage.swift:60— Helpers/CustomTextStorage.swift:60-66 | Helpers/CustomTextStorage.swift:80-86 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Helpers/CustomTextStorage.swift:88` calls `NSRange`, `addAttribute` and `Helpers/CustomTextStorage.swift:68` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:254— Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:254-260 | Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:387-393 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:254` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Controllers/VersionHistoryViewController.swift:332— Controllers/VersionHistoryViewController.swift:332-337 | Views/Toast.swift:178-183 — 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) Views/EditTextView.swift:306— Views/EditTextView.swift:306-311 | Views/MPreviewView.swift:475-480 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Views/EditTextView.swift:306` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Extensions/MPreviewView+Export.swift:258— Extensions/MPreviewView+Export.swift:258-263 | Helpers/PdfExportController.swift:343-348 — 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.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) Extensions/MPreviewView+Export.swift:798— `catch` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:1278— `catch` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) Business/Storage.swift:1305— `catch` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
AC6 · Visual & motion safety· Focus outline removed in CSS without a · ×2
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement Resources/DownView.bundle/ppt/plugin/notes/speaker-view.html:210— `#speaker-layout select:focus` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement Resources/DownView.bundle/css/typography.css:540— `.heti summary` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) Controllers/VersionHistoryViewController.swift:179— Controllers/VersionHistoryViewController.swift:179-195 | Controllers/VersionHistoryViewController.swift:201-218 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Controllers/VersionHistoryViewController.swift:201` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) Views/EditTextView.swift:612— Views/EditTextView.swift:612-628 | Views/EditTextView.swift:636-653 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Views/EditTextView.swift:636` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) Business/Storage.swift:796— Business/Storage.swift:796-805 | Business/Storage.swift:878-886 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Business/Storage.swift:808` calls `load` and `Business/Storage.swift:888` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:317— Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:317-326 | Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:393-401 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:317` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Controllers/AppDelegate+URLRoutes.swift:201— Controllers/AppDelegate+URLRoutes.swift:201-210 | Controllers/AppDelegate+URLRoutes.swift:276-285 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Controllers/AppDelegate+URLRoutes.swift:287` calls `appending` and `Controllers/AppDelegate+URLRoutes.swift:211` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:246— Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:246-255 | Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:260-269 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:270` calls `Int`, `replacingOccurrences`, `String` and `Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:256` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:933— Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:933-940 | Shell/ShellEditor.swift:520-527 — 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) Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:339— Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:339-346 | Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:348-355 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
AC6 · Visual & motion safety· Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard · ×1
Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard Resources/DownView.bundle/css/tocbot.css:208— `.pin-icon` moves (`transition: transform 0.12s ease-out`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.
AC7 · A11y enforcement· Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1
Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no accessibility linting at author time and no automated accessibility check in tests or CI. Add your UI toolkit's own accessibility assertion to the test suite (Flutter `meetsGuideline`, Espresso `AccessibilityChecks`, XCTest `performAccessibilityAudit`), then gate that test in the pipeline. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 8 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
ViewController.handleKeyDown (cyclomatic 117) Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:1300— ViewController.handleKeyDown has cyclomatic complexity 117 (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.
ShellWindowController.handleKeyDown (cyclomatic 93) Shell/ShellWindowController.swift:666— ShellWindowController.handleKeyDown has cyclomatic complexity 93 (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.
MarkdownRuleHighlighter.highlightMarkdown (cyclomatic 89) Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:58— MarkdownRuleHighlighter.highlightMarkdown has cyclomatic complexity 89 (threshold 15). Of this number, 84 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to 3 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
ShellWindowController.validateMenuItem (cyclomatic 71) Shell/ShellWindowController.swift:556— ShellWindowController.validateMenuItem has cyclomatic complexity 71 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
ViewController.configureLayout (cyclomatic 42) Controllers/ViewController.swift:778— ViewController.configureLayout has cyclomatic complexity 42 (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.
EditTextView.applyNoteContent (cyclomatic 41) Views/EditTextView.swift:541— EditTextView.applyNoteContent has cyclomatic complexity 41 (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.
ShellSidebarRow.body (cyclomatic 39) Shell/ShellRootView.swift:232— ShellSidebarRow.body has cyclomatic complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
ShellWindowController.handleColumnKey (cyclomatic 36) Shell/ShellWindowController.swift:853— ShellWindowController.handleColumnKey has cyclomatic complexity 36 (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.
ViewController.validateMenuItem (cyclomatic 33) Controllers/ViewController.swift:701— ViewController.validateMenuItem has cyclomatic complexity 33 (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.
ViewController.disablePreview (cyclomatic 33) Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:242— ViewController.disablePreview has cyclomatic complexity 33 (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.
ViewController.configureNotesList (cyclomatic 32) Controllers/ViewController.swift:1150— ViewController.configureNotesList has cyclomatic complexity 32 (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.
HtmlManager.processImages (cyclomatic 29) Business/HtmlManager.swift:446— HtmlManager.processImages has cyclomatic complexity 29 (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.
TypographyCleaner.parseSegments (cyclomatic 27) Helpers/TypographyCleaner.swift:252— TypographyCleaner.parseSegments has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). Of this number, 26 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function item inside it that branches. 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.
Markdown.swift.isCurrencyDollar (cyclomatic 27) Business/Markdown.swift:142— Markdown.swift.isCurrencyDollar has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
MPreviewView.updateContent (cyclomatic 26) Views/MPreviewView.swift:826— MPreviewView.updateContent has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
HtmlToMarkdown.renderInline (cyclomatic 25) Helpers/HtmlToMarkdown.swift:263— HtmlToMarkdown.renderInline has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
NotesTableView.handleSelectionChange (cyclomatic 25) Views/NotesTableView.swift:232— NotesTableView.handleSelectionChange has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
SidebarProjectView.outlineViewSelectionDidChange (cyclomatic 25) Views/SidebarProjectView.swift:867— SidebarProjectView.outlineViewSelectionDidChange has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
TypographyCleaner.clean (cyclomatic 23) Helpers/TypographyCleaner.swift:10— TypographyCleaner.clean has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
HtmlToMarkdown.renderList (cyclomatic 22) Helpers/HtmlToMarkdown.swift:146— HtmlToMarkdown.renderList has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function item inside it that branches. 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.
Storage.moveFolder (cyclomatic 21) Business/Storage.swift:305— Storage.moveFolder has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ViewController.refillEditArea (cyclomatic 21) Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:1373— ViewController.refillEditArea has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
EditTextView.keyDown (cyclomatic 21) Views/EditTextView.swift:1305— EditTextView.keyDown has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ViewController.loadMoveMenu (cyclomatic 20) Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:1134— ViewController.loadMoveMenu has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
TextFormatter.newLine (cyclomatic 20) Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:290— TextFormatter.newLine has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
NotesTableView.keyUp (cyclomatic 20) Views/NotesTableView.swift:84— NotesTableView.keyUp has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Storage.getSubFolders (cyclomatic 19) Business/Storage.swift:1254— Storage.getSubFolders has cyclomatic complexity 19 (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.
ViewController.textFinder (cyclomatic 19) Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:686— ViewController.textFinder has cyclomatic complexity 19 (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.
ViewController.prepareSearchParameters (cyclomatic 19) Controllers/ViewController+Data.swift:133— ViewController.prepareSearchParameters has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
MPreviewView.performKeyEquivalent (cyclomatic 19) Views/MPreviewView.swift:377— MPreviewView.performKeyEquivalent has cyclomatic complexity 19 (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.
Storage.checkFirstRun (cyclomatic 18) Business/Storage.swift:1043— Storage.checkFirstRun has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.
ShellNoteList.body (cyclomatic 18) Shell/ShellRootView.swift:436— ShellNoteList.body has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Markdown.swift.maskMarkdownCodeBlocks (cyclomatic 18) Business/Markdown.swift:278— Markdown.swift.maskMarkdownCodeBlocks has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.
Storage.sortQuery (cyclomatic 17) Business/Storage.swift:744— Storage.sortQuery has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
AppDelegate.addGlobalKeyboardMonitor (cyclomatic 17) Controllers/AppDelegate.swift:495— AppDelegate.addGlobalKeyboardMonitor has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ViewController.deleteNote (cyclomatic 17) Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:413— ViewController.deleteNote has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
EditorMenuManager.performFormattingAction (cyclomatic 17) Helpers/EditorMenuManager.swift:26— EditorMenuManager.performFormattingAction has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
HtmlToMarkdown.renderTable::collectRows (cyclomatic 17) Helpers/HtmlToMarkdown.swift:207— HtmlToMarkdown.renderTable::collectRows has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ImagePreviewManager.handleImageLinkHover (cyclomatic 17) Helpers/ImagePreviewManager.swift:16— ImagePreviewManager.handleImageLinkHover has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
LinkHighlighter.highlightLinks (cyclomatic 17) Helpers/LinkHighlighter.swift:49— LinkHighlighter.highlightLinks has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
EditTextView.renderPreviewContent (cyclomatic 17) Views/EditTextView.swift:696— EditTextView.renderPreviewContent has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
SearchTextField.control (cyclomatic 17) Views/SearchTextField.swift:150— SearchTextField.control has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
Storage.loadProjects (cyclomatic 16) Business/Storage.swift:504— Storage.loadProjects has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Storage.loadMissingNotes (cyclomatic 16) Business/Storage.swift:824— Storage.loadMissingNotes has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
MainWindowController.applyMiaoYanAppearance (cyclomatic 16) Controllers/MainWindowController.swift:278— MainWindowController.applyMiaoYanAppearance has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
TypographyPrefsViewController.setupFontPopUp (cyclomatic 16) Controllers/TypographyPrefsViewController.swift:53— TypographyPrefsViewController.setupFontPopUp has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
MarkdownRuleHighlighter.highlightBasicMarkdown (cyclomatic 16) Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:5— MarkdownRuleHighlighter.highlightBasicMarkdown has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
CodeTextProcessor.getBlockRanges (cyclomatic 16) Helpers/NotesTextProcessor.swift:945— CodeTextProcessor.getBlockRanges has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ShellWindowController.handleScroll (cyclomatic 16) Shell/ShellWindowController.swift:980— ShellWindowController.handleScroll has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
EditTextView.showSearchBar (cyclomatic 16) Views/EditTextView.swift:1516— EditTextView.showSearchBar has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
SidebarProjectView.deleteMenu (cyclomatic 16) Views/SidebarProjectView.swift:1040— SidebarProjectView.deleteMenu has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
TodoComment Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:922— // TODO(tripwire): this is a temporary diagnostic. Remove (along with — 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.
ViewController.handleKeyDown (cognitive 161) Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:1300— ViewController.handleKeyDown has cognitive complexity 161 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 57 (100 pts), boolean chains 61 (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.
ShellWindowController.handleKeyDown (cognitive 107) Shell/ShellWindowController.swift:666— ShellWindowController.handleKeyDown has cognitive complexity 107 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 32 (61 pts), boolean chains 45, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 29). 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.
MarkdownRuleHighlighter.highlightMarkdown (cognitive 92) Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:58— MarkdownRuleHighlighter.highlightMarkdown has cognitive complexity 92 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 61 (65 pts), boolean chains 27 (nesting depth added 4). Of this number, 87 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to 3 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
HtmlManager.processImages (cognitive 82) Business/HtmlManager.swift:446— HtmlManager.processImages has cognitive complexity 82 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (62 pts), ternaries 3 (13 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 48). 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.
ViewController.configureLayout (cognitive 73) Controllers/ViewController.swift:778— ViewController.configureLayout has cognitive complexity 73 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (50 pts), loops 8 (14 pts), boolean chains 9 (nesting depth added 32). 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.
EditTextView.applyNoteContent (cognitive 56) Views/EditTextView.swift:541— EditTextView.applyNoteContent has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (36 pts), boolean chains 20 (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.
ShellWindowController.validateMenuItem (cognitive 54) Shell/ShellWindowController.swift:556— ShellWindowController.validateMenuItem has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 38, ternaries 6 (12 pts), if/else 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). 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.
SidebarProjectView.outlineViewSelectionDidChange (cognitive 53) Views/SidebarProjectView.swift:867— SidebarProjectView.outlineViewSelectionDidChange has cognitive complexity 53 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (41 pts), ternaries 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 27). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
TypographyCleaner.parseSegments (cognitive 52) Helpers/TypographyCleaner.swift:252— TypographyCleaner.parseSegments has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (32 pts), boolean chains 10, loops 4 (10 pts) (nesting depth added 25). Of this number, 51 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ShellWindowController.handleColumnKey (cognitive 51) Shell/ShellWindowController.swift:853— ShellWindowController.handleColumnKey has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (36 pts), boolean chains 9, match/switch 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ViewController.validateMenuItem (cognitive 48) Controllers/ViewController.swift:701— ViewController.validateMenuItem has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (34 pts), boolean chains 12, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 18). 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.
ViewController.disablePreview (cognitive 48) Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:242— ViewController.disablePreview has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (37 pts), boolean chains 9, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ShellSidebarRow.body (cognitive 45) Shell/ShellRootView.swift:232— ShellSidebarRow.body has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (22 pts), boolean chains 17, ternaries 5 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
TypographyCleaner.clean (cognitive 42) Helpers/TypographyCleaner.swift:10— TypographyCleaner.clean has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (35 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 1 (nesting depth added 19). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ViewController.configureNotesList (cognitive 41) Controllers/ViewController.swift:1150— ViewController.configureNotesList has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (24 pts), boolean chains 17 (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.
NotesTableView.handleSelectionChange (cognitive 40) Views/NotesTableView.swift:232— NotesTableView.handleSelectionChange has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (32 pts), boolean chains 8 (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.
HtmlToMarkdown.renderList (cognitive 39) Helpers/HtmlToMarkdown.swift:146— HtmlToMarkdown.renderList has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (24 pts), boolean chains 8, loops 3 (5 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 15). Of this number, 37 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Storage.getSubFolders (cognitive 36) Business/Storage.swift:1254— Storage.getSubFolders has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (26 pts), boolean chains 6, error handling 1 (2 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 18). 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.
ViewController.textFinder (cognitive 34) Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:686— ViewController.textFinder has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (30 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 18). 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.
Storage.loadMissingNotes (cognitive 33) Business/Storage.swift:824— Storage.loadMissingNotes has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (30 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 17). 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.
ViewController.refillEditArea (cognitive 32) Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:1373— ViewController.refillEditArea has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (20 pts), boolean chains 12 (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.
EditTextView.keyDown (cognitive 32) Views/EditTextView.swift:1305— EditTextView.keyDown has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (27 pts), boolean chains 5 (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.
HtmlToMarkdown.renderTable::collectRows (cognitive 31) Helpers/HtmlToMarkdown.swift:207— HtmlToMarkdown.renderTable::collectRows has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (20 pts), boolean chains 7, loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
EditTextView.renderPreviewContent (cognitive 31) Views/EditTextView.swift:696— EditTextView.renderPreviewContent has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), boolean chains 9 (nesting depth added 12). 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.
TextFormatter.newLine (cognitive 30) Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:290— TextFormatter.newLine has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (25 pts), boolean chains 5 (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.
HtmlToMarkdown.renderInline (cognitive 28) Helpers/HtmlToMarkdown.swift:263— HtmlToMarkdown.renderInline has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 7 (14 pts), if/else 7 (10 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 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.
TypographyCleaner.normalizeEmDash (cognitive 28) Helpers/TypographyCleaner.swift:460— TypographyCleaner.normalizeEmDash has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 4 (14 pts), if/else 3 (9 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
Markdown.swift.isCurrencyDollar (cognitive 28) Business/Markdown.swift:142— Markdown.swift.isCurrencyDollar has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 19, if/else 5 (6 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
ShellModel.setPresenting (cognitive 27) Shell/ShellModel.swift:713— ShellModel.setPresenting has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (24 pts), boolean chains 3 (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.
MPreviewView.updateContent (cognitive 27) Views/MPreviewView.swift:826— MPreviewView.updateContent has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (15 pts), boolean chains 9, error handling 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Markdown.swift.maskMarkdownCodeBlocks (cognitive 27) Business/Markdown.swift:278— Markdown.swift.maskMarkdownCodeBlocks has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (17 pts), loops 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 2, ternaries 1 (2 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.
Storage.moveFolder (cognitive 26) Business/Storage.swift:305— Storage.moveFolder has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 6 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Storage.checkFirstRun (cognitive 26) Business/Storage.swift:1043— Storage.checkFirstRun has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), ternaries 5, error handling 1, match/switch 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.
Storage.loadProjects (cognitive 24) Business/Storage.swift:504— Storage.loadProjects has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (17 pts), boolean chains 6, 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.
ViewController.loadMoveMenu (cognitive 24) Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:1134— ViewController.loadMoveMenu has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 2 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
TypographyCleaner.cleanLineCore (cognitive 24) Helpers/TypographyCleaner.swift:210— TypographyCleaner.cleanLineCore has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (18 pts), boolean chains 5, 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.
NotesTableView.keyUp (cognitive 24) Views/NotesTableView.swift:84— NotesTableView.keyUp has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), boolean chains 9 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
WikilinkIndex.readEntries (cognitive 23) Business/WikilinkIndex.swift:58— WikilinkIndex.readEntries has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 3 (4 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.
ViewController.collectImportableFiles (cognitive 23) Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:148— ViewController.collectImportableFiles has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (20 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 13). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
CodeTextProcessor.scanCodeBlockDown (cognitive 23) Helpers/NotesTextProcessor.swift:895— CodeTextProcessor.scanCodeBlockDown has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (20 pts), boolean chains 3 (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.
CodeTextProcessor.getBlockRanges (cognitive 23) Helpers/NotesTextProcessor.swift:945— CodeTextProcessor.getBlockRanges has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), boolean chains 7, 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.
EditTextView.deleteUnusedImages (cognitive 23) Views/EditTextView.swift:1207— EditTextView.deleteUnusedImages has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), error handling 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 13). 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.
MPreviewView.performKeyEquivalent (cognitive 23) Views/MPreviewView.swift:377— MPreviewView.performKeyEquivalent has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), boolean chains 9 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
AppDelegate.addGlobalKeyboardMonitor (cognitive 22) Controllers/AppDelegate.swift:495— AppDelegate.addGlobalKeyboardMonitor has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), boolean chains 9 (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.
ImagePreviewManager.handleImageLinkHover (cognitive 22) Helpers/ImagePreviewManager.swift:16— ImagePreviewManager.handleImageLinkHover has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ShellWindowController.textFinder (cognitive 22) Shell/ShellWindowController.swift:381— ShellWindowController.textFinder has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
EditTextView.showSearchBar (cognitive 22) Views/EditTextView.swift:1516— EditTextView.showSearchBar has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
SidebarProjectView.deleteMenu (cognitive 22) Views/SidebarProjectView.swift:1040— SidebarProjectView.deleteMenu has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (12 pts), boolean chains 7, error handling 1 (3 pts) (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.
Markdown.swift.markdownCodeMask (cognitive 22) Business/Markdown.swift:195— Markdown.swift.markdownCodeMask has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Storage.loadLabel (cognitive 21) Business/Storage.swift:762— Storage.loadLabel has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (19 pts), boolean chains 1, 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.
ViewController.prepareSearchParameters (cognitive 21) Controllers/ViewController+Data.swift:133— ViewController.prepareSearchParameters has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 11, if/else 7 (10 pts) (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
BacktickAndFontNormalizer.normalize (cognitive 21) Helpers/BacktickAndFontNormalizer.swift:5— BacktickAndFontNormalizer.normalize has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), boolean chains 5 (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.
SidebarProjectView.reloadSidebar (cognitive 21) Views/SidebarProjectView.swift:1295— SidebarProjectView.reloadSidebar has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (17 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, ternaries 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.
HtmlManager.processImagesInMarkdown (cognitive 20) Business/HtmlManager.swift:634— HtmlManager.processImagesInMarkdown has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (14 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ViewController.duplicate (cognitive 20) Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:522— ViewController.duplicate has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (13 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ViewController.formatText (cognitive 20) Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:806— ViewController.formatText has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), error handling 2 (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.
ShellNoteList.body (cognitive 20) Shell/ShellRootView.swift:436— ShellNoteList.body has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (14 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
SidebarProjectView.isChangedSelectedProjectsState (cognitive 20) Views/SidebarProjectView.swift:838— SidebarProjectView.isChangedSelectedProjectsState has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), loops 2 (4 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.
Storage.reconfigureForSingleMode (cognitive 19) Business/Storage.swift:546— Storage.reconfigureForSingleMode has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Storage.findOrphanAttachments (cognitive 19) Business/Storage.swift:1402— Storage.findOrphanAttachments has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (10 pts), loops 6 (8 pts), 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.
TypographyPrefsViewController.setupFontPopUp (cognitive 19) Controllers/TypographyPrefsViewController.swift:53— TypographyPrefsViewController.setupFontPopUp has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (10 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
ClipboardManager.saveClipboard (cognitive 19) Helpers/ClipboardManager.swift:154— ClipboardManager.saveClipboard has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (17 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ShellModel.computeNotes (cognitive 19) Shell/ShellModel.swift:1645— ShellModel.computeNotes has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (11 pts), ternaries 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ShellModel.group (cognitive 19) Shell/ShellModel.swift:1697— ShellModel.group has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ShellWindowController.handleScroll (cognitive 19) Shell/ShellWindowController.swift:980— ShellWindowController.handleScroll has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (12 pts), boolean chains 6, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
MPreviewView.showSearchBar (cognitive 19) Views/MPreviewView+Search.swift:84— MPreviewView.showSearchBar has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
SidebarProjectView.outlineView (cognitive 19) Views/SidebarProjectView.swift:374— SidebarProjectView.outlineView has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), boolean chains 5, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
NSTextStorage.expandedSyntaxContextRange (cognitive 19) Helpers/CustomTextStorage.swift:225— NSTextStorage.expandedSyntaxContextRange has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), loops 2 (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.
Note.moveFilesAssetsToFlat (cognitive 18) Business/Note.swift:1147— Note.moveFilesAssetsToFlat has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
MainWindowController.applyMiaoYanAppearance (cognitive 18) Controllers/MainWindowController.swift:278— MainWindowController.applyMiaoYanAppearance has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (12 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
ViewController.handleNonEmptyResults (cognitive 18) Controllers/ViewController+Data.swift:372— ViewController.handleNonEmptyResults has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (16 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ImagePreviewWindow.calculateImageSize (cognitive 18) Views/ImagePreviewWindow.swift:194— ImagePreviewWindow.calculateImageSize has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (17 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). 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.
Frontmatter.looksLikeYAML (cognitive 17) Packages/MiaoYanCore/Sources/MiaoYanCore/Frontmatter.swift:71— Frontmatter.looksLikeYAML has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
HtmlManager.embedLocalImages (cognitive 17) Business/HtmlManager.swift:419— HtmlManager.embedLocalImages has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (10 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts), loops 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.
Storage.checkSub (cognitive 17) Business/Storage.swift:146— Storage.checkSub has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 8, if/else 3 (7 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
Storage.sortQuery (cognitive 17) Business/Storage.swift:744— Storage.sortQuery has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 11, if/else 2 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
Storage.removeNotes (cognitive 17) Business/Storage.swift:1180— Storage.removeNotes has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ViewController.viewDidAppear (cognitive 17) Controllers/ViewController.swift:494— ViewController.viewDidAppear has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
ViewController.textDidChange (cognitive 17) Controllers/ViewController.swift:1338— ViewController.textDidChange has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (11 pts), boolean chains 4, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ViewController.deleteNote (cognitive 17) Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:413— ViewController.deleteNote has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (9 pts), boolean chains 8 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
MarkdownRuleHighlighter.highlightBasicMarkdown (cognitive 17) Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:5— MarkdownRuleHighlighter.highlightBasicMarkdown has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (11 pts), boolean chains 6 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
TypographyCleaner.trimSpacesAroundFullwidthPunctuation (cognitive 17) Helpers/TypographyCleaner.swift:543— TypographyCleaner.trimSpacesAroundFullwidthPunctuation has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 2 (4 pts) (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.
ShellEditorController.format (cognitive 17) Shell/ShellEditor.swift:460— ShellEditorController.format has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), boolean chains 5, error handling 2 (nesting depth added 3). 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.
MPreviewView.buildPdfOutline (cognitive 17) Extensions/MPreviewView+Export.swift:996— MPreviewView.buildPdfOutline has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Project.loadSettings (cognitive 16) Business/Project.swift:112— Project.loadSettings has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 8). 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.
Storage.relocateFolder (cognitive 16) Business/Storage.swift:240— Storage.relocateFolder has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (12 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2 (nesting depth added 4). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
LinkHighlighter.highlightLinks (cognitive 16) Helpers/LinkHighlighter.swift:49— LinkHighlighter.highlightLinks has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9, boolean chains 7. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
NotesTextProcessor.convertAppLinks (cognitive 16) Helpers/NotesTextProcessor.swift:193— NotesTextProcessor.convertAppLinks has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (8 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ShellWindowController.observePresentation (cognitive 16) Shell/ShellWindowController.swift:1131— ShellWindowController.observePresentation has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Near-duplicate member pair (38 shared lines) Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:455— Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:455-514 | Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:516-597 — These two members are variants of one another: 38 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:51— Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:51-57 | Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:59-65 | Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:67-73 | Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:75-81 — 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.
Duplicated block (25–29 lines × 2) Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:492— Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:492-520 | Shell/ShellModel.swift:920-944 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:492` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11–19 lines × 2) Views/EditTextView.swift:1541— Views/EditTextView.swift:1541-1551 | Views/MPreviewView+Search.swift:112-130 — 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 (16–17 lines × 2) Views/EditTextView.swift:1856— Views/EditTextView.swift:1856-1872 | Views/MPreviewView.swift:353-368 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Views/EditTextView.swift:1856` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Views/EditTextView.swift:1874` calls `showSearchBar` and `Views/MPreviewView.swift:369` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:439— Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:439-452 | Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:982-995 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Controllers/ViewController+Action.swift:439` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (3–13 lines × 14) Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:456— Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:456-468 | Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:472-474 | Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:478-480 | Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:484-486 | Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:496-498 | Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:517-529 | Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:533-535 | Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:538-540 | Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:544-546 | Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:550-552 | Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:556-558 | Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:561-563 | Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:567-569 | Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:579-581 — all 14 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:456` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:469` calls `NSPoint` and `Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:536` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:502— Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:502-514 | Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:585-597 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Views/PreviewSearchBar.swift:502` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) Business/HtmlManager.swift:570— Business/HtmlManager.swift:570-580 | Business/HtmlManager.swift:583-594 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Business/HtmlManager.swift:583` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 2) Business/Storage.swift:1331— Business/Storage.swift:1331-1341 | Shell/ShellModel.swift:473-481 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Business/Storage.swift:1331` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Helpers/NotesTextProcessor.swift:868— Helpers/NotesTextProcessor.swift:868-878 | Helpers/NotesTextProcessor.swift:899-909 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Helpers/NotesTextProcessor.swift:868` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (3–10 lines × 3) Business/HtmlManager.swift:490— Business/HtmlManager.swift:490-492 | Business/HtmlManager.swift:503-512 | Business/HtmlManager.swift:526-533 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Business/HtmlManager.swift:503` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Business/HtmlManager.swift:513` calls `replacingOccurrences` and `Business/HtmlManager.swift:492` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (7–9 lines × 4) Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:137— Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:137-145 | Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:148-156 | Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:158-165 | Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:169-175 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:137` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:165` calls `addAttribute`, `markDelimiters` and `Helpers/MarkdownRuleHighlighter.swift:145` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (7–9 lines × 2) Shell/ShellModel+Folders.swift:61— Shell/ShellModel+Folders.swift:61-67 | Views/SidebarProjectView.swift:1010-1018 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Shell/ShellModel+Folders.swift:61` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:52— Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:52-57 | Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:60-65 | Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:68-73 | Helpers/TextFormatter.swift:76-81 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (3–5 lines × 3) Business/HtmlManager.swift:493— Business/HtmlManager.swift:493-495 | Business/HtmlManager.swift:516-520 | Business/HtmlManager.swift:537-541 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Business/HtmlManager.swift:493` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Business/HtmlManager.swift:516` calls `replacingOccurrences` and `Business/HtmlManager.swift:493` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Off the main sequence: MiaoYanCore — MiaoYanCore: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Duplicated predicate Resources/DownView.bundle/js/common.js:8— `window.ThemeConfig?.isDarkMode?.() || 'CUSTOM_CSS' === 'darkmode'` appears character-identically in 2 files — Resources/DownView.bundle/js/common.js, Resources/DownView.bundle/js/diagram-handler.js. 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 Controllers/ViewController+Data.swift:142— `UserDefaultsManagement.isSingleMode && FileManager.default.directoryExists(atUrl: singleModeUrl)` appears character-identically in 2 files — Controllers/ViewController+Data.swift, Controllers/ViewController.swift. 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 Shell/ShellRootView.swift:590— `model.isSearchOpen || !model.searchText.isEmpty` appears character-identically in 2 files — Shell/ShellRootView.swift, Shell/ShellWindowController.swift. 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 Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift:646— `sessionPresentationMode || sessionMagicPPTMode` appears character-identically in 3 files — Controllers/ViewController+Editor.swift, Controllers/ViewController+Layout.swift, Controllers/ViewController.swift. 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 Controllers/ViewController+Data.swift:507— `type == .All && note.project.showInCommon` appears character-identically in 2 files — Controllers/ViewController+Data.swift, Shell/ShellModel.swift. 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.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 4 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: Extensions/ImageAttachment+.swift, Business/NoteAttachment.swift, Extensions/String+.swift, Views/TitleTextField.swift. 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: Helpers/TypographyCleaner.swift, Helpers/Diagnostics.swift, Business/CloudSyncManager.swift. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 2 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (35469 LoC, 217 module-visible types across 12 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.
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.
No src/ separation — Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
P10 · Library API & versioning· No explicit versioning · ×1
No explicit versioning Packages/MiaoYanCore/Package.swift— No explicit version was found for the SwiftPM library declared by `Package.swift`. This check read nothing in Package.swift, which has no version field, and a CHANGELOG/CHANGES/HISTORY/NEWS/RELEASES file with a semver heading, or release tooling (changesets, release-please, semantic-release, goreleaser, cargo-release, bump2version, standard-version, git-cliff) in the library's directory or at the repository root, or a semver release tag (or a Drupal `8.x-1.2` release tag) in the repository. A version computed where none of those can see is invisible here. A published library needs explicit semantic versioning so consumers can reason about breaking changes.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 5769 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
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.
Changelog looks stale/thin — The changelog this check read carries 1 versioned entry, against a bar of 3. Counted as either the distinct `x.y.z` versions it names (a link's target is not counted) or its version-shaped section headings (`## [1.2.0]`, `## V14.x.x`, `## Updates in 8.0.x`), whichever is the larger — so a log sectioned by minor series counts its sections, not its individual patch numbers. Entries recorded somewhere this check does not read — release notes generated at tag time from a generator config it did not recognise, or a log kept outside the repository — are not counted here, and this row is about what is re-findable in the tree rather than about how often you release.
No security response headers detected vercel.json: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 `vercel.json` 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.)
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Business/Markdown.swift:388— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Swift code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Silent fallback default in catch Views/MPreviewView.swift:1003— `buildImagePatchScript` turns every thrown error into `""` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). 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 at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
Outdated: sparkle — `sparkle` is resolved at 2.8.0, but 2.10.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/sparkle-project/Sparkle.git within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update sparkle` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: sparkle — `sparkle` is resolved at 2.9.0, but 2.10.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/sparkle-project/Sparkle.git within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update sparkle` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
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. semgrep could not parse 13 file(s) — `Business/HtmlManager.swift`, `Business/Markdown.swift`, `Business/Note.swift`, `Business/NoteAttachment.swift`, `Business/WikilinkIndex.swift`, … (+8 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
Run 01a17779-6048-7050-92bc-919cec57b79f · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 13 · Warnings: 307 · Recommendations: 21 · Info: 2 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 26-10-2026 @ 09:10 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.