Public report — workerman, published 4 Aug 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdogby Canine Development 04-08-2026 @ 23:11 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Walkor/workerman

65% Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
upper third — near Strong
Architecture 100% Exemplary Security 100% Exemplary Code Health 68% Adequate Readiness 63% Adequate Maturity 56% Adequate

Small · 10,816 LoC · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Maturity (56%)

Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸

18/20dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 2 LLM-assisted, advisory
72findings with an exact file:lineof 77 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
20/94dimensions across the health lenses10816 LoC — wide & deep

Executive summary

Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.

walkor/workerman is sound in substance but carries real gaps (65%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.

It is strongest in Architecture (100%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Security (100%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Maturity (56%) — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent. Readiness (63%) is the next concern — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Record significant decisions one document per decision (Architecture documentation); 'Testing' section to the root README (Documentation (README)); 1 The 'Basic Usage' section only covers a single protocol… (Documentation Quality).

For scale: Small (~10,816 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 68% Adequate · gated by D2 Architecture 100% ★ Exemplary Maturity 56% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 63% Adequate · gated by P3 Security 100% ★ Exemplary
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Maturity 56% · 47% weightReadiness 63% · 26% weightCode Health 68% · 14% weightArchitecture 100% · 8% weightSecurity 100% · 4% weight

Raise Maturity 56 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 65 → ~70.

Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €5,100–€26,000
Cost to rebuild€5,100–€26,000 (0.1–0.2 person-years (85–270 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.9× (at 65% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€15,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 56% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

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

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 1 The 'Basic Usage' section only covers a single protocol (WebSocket) and… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md.
+5.9 pts · Low effort · Documentation Quality
2
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
+9.3 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation
3
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
+7.7 pts · Medium effort · Documentation (README)

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 56%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (10,816 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 56%
→ Direct remediation budget at Maturity first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 6.1/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 5–11% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Evidence: D1/D2/D4 code quality: averaging 6.1/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured
→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.
The top fix pays for itself · Medium · Economics
The top-ranked fix costs roughly 1–3 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 0.1–0.7 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~1,063 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 16–289 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 5–11% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.
Evidence: D15 churn: 262 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~1,063/year · D1/D2/D4 code quality: averaging 6.1/10 ⇒ a 5–11% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Low effort ⇒ about 1–3 engineer-day(s)
→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 289 months.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

6 modules, 7 dependencies — every dependency points down the layering, so there are no cycles. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

Workerman.Events…rotocols.Http.SessionWorkermanWorkerman.Connection…kerman.Protocols.HttpWorkerman.ProtocolsWorkerman.Events1…rotocols.Http.Session2Workerman3Workerman.Connection4…kerman.Protocols.Http5Workerman.Protocols62211151

At a glance — Code Health · 68% · Adequate · gated by D2

The Good
D3 · PHP God Classes 8.8 D4 · PHP Code Duplication 9.6
The Bad
D1 · PHP Cyclomatic Complexity 6.8
The Ugly
D2 · PHP Cognitive Complexity 2.0

At a glance — Architecture · 100% · Exemplary

The Good
D35 · PHP Change Coupling 10.0

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

The Good
D16 · PHP Bus Factor 8.2 D21 · PHP Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · PHP Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Bad
D15 · PHP Churn × Complexity Hotspots 6.5 D19 · PHP Documentation Quality 6.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.7
The Ugly
M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 63% · Adequate · gated by P3

The Good
D13 · PHP Secret Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.0
The Ugly
P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 3.0

At a glance — Security · 100% · Exemplary

The Good
D28 · PHP Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · PHP Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D37 · PHP Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 10.0

Roadmap

Begin by establishing a formal architecture decision record system to capture significant design choices and their consequences. Next, update the root README to include a testing section and address existing documentation quality issues. Implement static analysis tools in the CI pipeline to automatically fail builds on regressions. Finally, address the three identified complexity hotspots in the codebase.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 The 'Basic Usage' section only covers a single protocol (WebSocket) and… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md.+5.9 ptsLowDocumentation Quality
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).+9.3 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.+7.7 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)
Your ecosystem's static analyzer is declared as a dependency but is not wired into CI — run it as a required step on push/PR (e.g. `composer phpstan` / `mix sobelow` / `bundle exec brakeman` / the spotbugs Gradle task / `sbt scalafixAll --check` / `golangci-lint run` / `rebar3 lint`) so a regression fails the build instead of relying on someone running it locally.+5.8 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor.+2.8 ptsLowBus Factor
Resolve the 3 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with AsyncTcpConnection.php, Worker.php, Http.php.+4.6 ptsHighChurn × Complexity Hotspots
Add an explicit build/compile step to your CI pipeline — your stack's own build command, or, if the pipeline delegates to a task runner, a build task that runner executes in CI — so every change is compiled before merge.+3.4 ptsMediumCI/CD gates
Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Worker.php, TcpConnection.php.+0.2 ptsMediumGod Classes

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 11 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 82% mixed · 18% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
src/Worker.php7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Worker.parseCommand (cyclomatic 36)
src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: AsyncTcpConnection.checkConnection (cyclomatic 42)
src/Connection/TcpConnection.php7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: TcpConnection.baseRead (cyclomatic 42)
src/Protocols/Websocket.php7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Websocket.input (cyclomatic 32)
src/Protocols/Http.php7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Http.input (cyclomatic 27)
src/Protocols/Ws.php7.1MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Ws.input (cyclomatic 33)
src/Protocols/Http/Request.php7.2MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Request.parseUploadFile (cyclomatic 18)
src/Protocols/Http/Response.php7.2MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Response.createHeadForFile (cyclomatic 16)
src/Events/Select.php7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Select.run (cyclomatic 16)
src/Timer.php8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: Timer.tick (cognitive 21)
README.md9.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: The 'Basic Usage' section only covers a single protocol (WebSocket) and omits other supported transports like HTTP, TCP, and SSL with code examples.

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. 18 of 20 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.5 — 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 — 20 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D13D15D16D19D21D28D29D34D35D37M1M2M3M4P1P3

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 72 of 77 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.

Tools & methods

The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication—✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.302✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.302✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivySecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019fcf0b-8c8c-7405-a08b-2c24e778611a.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — 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.
  • 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").
  • 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.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • 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.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity6.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

16 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was AsyncTcpConnection.checkConnection at 42.

AsyncTcpConnection.checkConnection (cyclomatic 42)src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:379
TcpConnection.baseRead (cyclomatic 42)src/Connection/TcpConnection.php:669
Worker.parseCommand (cyclomatic 36)src/Worker.php:1073
Ws.input (cyclomatic 33)src/Protocols/Ws.php:59
Websocket.input (cyclomatic 32)src/Protocols/Websocket.php:88

+ 11 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 AsyncTcpConnection.checkConnection (cyclomatic 42) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with AsyncTcpConnection.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 TcpConnection.baseRead (cyclomatic 42) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with TcpConnection.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Worker.parseCommand (cyclomatic 36) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Worker.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

36 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was AsyncTcpConnection.checkConnection at 106.

AsyncTcpConnection.checkConnection (cognitive 106)src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:379
TcpConnection.baseRead (cognitive 98)src/Connection/TcpConnection.php:669
Ws.input (cognitive 88)src/Protocols/Ws.php:59
Websocket.input (cognitive 84)src/Protocols/Websocket.php:88
Worker.parseCommand (cognitive 54)src/Worker.php:1073

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 AsyncTcpConnection.checkConnection (cognitive 106) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with AsyncTcpConnection.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 TcpConnection.baseRead (cognitive 98) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with TcpConnection.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Ws.input (cognitive 88) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Ws.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D3 · God Classes8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

5 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: Worker · ×3src/Worker.php:56
FileTooLong: src/Worker.php · ×2src/Worker.php:0

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Worker.php, Request.php, TcpConnection.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Worker.php, TcpConnection.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  3. Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D4 · Code Duplication9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

11 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×2src/Protocols/Http/Response.php:479
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×2src/Protocols/Websocket.php:103
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)src/Protocols/Websocket.php:195
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2)src/Worker.php:1579
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2)src/Protocols/Websocket.php:176

+ 4 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Top hotspots: src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php (2×42=84); src/Worker.php (2×36=72); src/Protocols/Http.php (2×27=54)

Hotspot: src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php · ×3src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with AsyncTcpConnection.php, Worker.php, Http.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).

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

D16 · Bus Factor8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/Events/Select.php.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Adequate◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

Workerman's single README is a solid overview: it states the project name, Gitter badge, Packagist badges for latest stable version, monthly/daily downloads, and license. It explains what Workerman is (asynchronous event-driven PHP framework with high performance), its supported features (HTTP, WebSocket, custom protocols, coroutines, connection pools), and prerequisites (POSIX compatible OS, POSIX/PCNTL/extensions, Event/Swoole/Swow extension recommended). The Installation section gives the composer command. It links to manual.workerman.net as documentation and shows a basic websocket server example. A full outline is visible in the body but the document clips mid-Worker::ru call; no further sections are flagged as missing.

The 'Basic Usage' section only covers a single protocol (WebSocket) and omits other supported transports like HTTP, TCP, and SSL with code examples.README.md

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 The 'Basic Usage' section only covers a single protocol (WebSocket) and… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

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

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

Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

M1 · Documentation (README)6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
  • No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.

What to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

P1 · CI/CD gates8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • A CI pipeline exists but no build/compile step was matched — changes may merge without being compiled. A build step may be invoked directly as a command, or declared as a task that a runner named in the pipeline resolves.

What to do

  • Add an explicit build/compile step to your CI pipeline — your stack's own build command, or, if the pipeline delegates to a task runner, a build task that runner executes in CI — so every change is compiled before merge.
P3 · Security & performance tooling3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Your ecosystem's static analyzer is declared as a dependency but is not wired into CI — run it as a required step on push/PR (e.g. `composer phpstan` / `mix sobelow` / `bundle exec brakeman` / the spotbugs Gradle task / `sbt scalafixAll --check` / `golangci-lint run` / `rebar3 lint`) so a regression fails the build instead of relying on someone running it locally.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health68%Adequate — gated by D2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture100%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity56%Adequate — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness63%Adequate — gated by P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security100%ExemplarySolid.
Not included — 74 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
  • AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over a document set that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
  • AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
  • AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) 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
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • D10 Test Quality — ~2270 lines of test source are present (.php) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
  • D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (composer.json), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
  • D17 Explicit Debt — explicit-debt markers are read through a C# workspace today, so they were not read for this repository's language — this asserts nothing about how many markers the code carries. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.php) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
  • D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (composer.json — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
  • 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.
  • D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is .php, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
  • D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.php) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • 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 check looks for
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
  • 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, 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'.
  • P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
  • P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from 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
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Clover XML — `vendor/bin/phpunit --coverage-clover coverage.xml`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security 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 web-security 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • 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

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.

Warning — 71 finding(s)
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×3
  • Hotspot: src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php — src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php changed 2 times in last 90 days, max complexity 42. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, 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.
  • Hotspot: src/Worker.php src/Worker.php — src/Worker.php changed 2 times in last 90 days, max complexity 36. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
  • Hotspot: src/Protocols/Http.php src/Protocols/Http.php — src/Protocols/Http.php changed 2 times in last 90 days, max complexity 27. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, 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.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×3
  • TooManyMethods: Worker src/Worker.php:56 — TooManyMethods — 69 methods. 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: Request src/Protocols/Http/Request.php:53 — TooManyMethods — 39 methods. 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: TcpConnection src/Connection/TcpConnection.php:66 — TooManyMethods — 31 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×2
  • FileTooLong: src/Worker.php src/Worker.php:0 — FileTooLong — 1298 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 97% of them inside a single declaration: Worker (57-2831). 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: Connection/TcpConnection.php src/Connection/TcpConnection.php:0 — FileTooLong — 504 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 92% of them inside a single declaration: TcpConnection (66-1261). 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/Protocols/Http/Response.php:479 — src/Protocols/Http/Response.php:479-495 | src/Protocols/Http/Response.php:549-565 — 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 `src/Protocols/Http/Response.php:479` 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 (17 lines × 2) src/Protocols/Websocket.php:220 — src/Protocols/Websocket.php:220-237 | src/Protocols/Ws.php:186-202 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Protocols/Websocket.php:220` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Protocols/Websocket.php:103 — src/Protocols/Websocket.php:103-114 | src/Protocols/Ws.php:74-86 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Protocols/Websocket.php:103` 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 (12 lines × 2) src/Protocols/Websocket.php:286 — src/Protocols/Websocket.php:286-297 | src/Protocols/Ws.php:255-266 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Protocols/Websocket.php:286` 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AsyncTcpConnection.checkConnection (cyclomatic 42) · ×1
  • AsyncTcpConnection.checkConnection (cyclomatic 42) src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:379 — AsyncTcpConnection.checkConnection 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TcpConnection.baseRead (cyclomatic 42) · ×1
  • TcpConnection.baseRead (cyclomatic 42) src/Connection/TcpConnection.php:669 — TcpConnection.baseRead 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Worker.parseCommand (cyclomatic 36) · ×1
  • Worker.parseCommand (cyclomatic 36) src/Worker.php:1073 — Worker.parseCommand 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Ws.input (cyclomatic 33) · ×1
  • Ws.input (cyclomatic 33) src/Protocols/Ws.php:59 — Ws.input 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Websocket.input (cyclomatic 32) · ×1
  • Websocket.input (cyclomatic 32) src/Protocols/Websocket.php:88 — Websocket.input 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Http.input (cyclomatic 27) · ×1
  • Http.input (cyclomatic 27) src/Protocols/Http.php:114 — Http.input has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TcpConnection.send (cyclomatic 22) · ×1
  • TcpConnection.send (cyclomatic 22) src/Connection/TcpConnection.php:454 — TcpConnection.send has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Worker.stopAll (cyclomatic 21) · ×1
  • Worker.stopAll (cyclomatic 21) src/Worker.php:2040 — Worker.stopAll has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Request.parseUploadFile (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • Request.parseUploadFile (cyclomatic 18) src/Protocols/Http/Request.php:638 — Request.parseUploadFile 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Http.inputChunked (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • Http.inputChunked (cyclomatic 17) src/Protocols/Http.php:217 — Http.inputChunked has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Http.decodeChunked (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • Http.decodeChunked (cyclomatic 17) src/Protocols/Http.php:312 — Http.decodeChunked has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Worker.listen (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • Worker.listen (cyclomatic 17) src/Worker.php:2440 — Worker.listen has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AsyncTcpConnection.connect (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • AsyncTcpConnection.connect (cyclomatic 16) src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:263 — AsyncTcpConnection.connect 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Select.run (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • Select.run (cyclomatic 16) src/Events/Select.php:386 — Select.run 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Response.createHeadForFile (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • Response.createHeadForFile (cyclomatic 16) src/Protocols/Http/Response.php:470 — Response.createHeadForFile 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Worker.writeConnectionsStatisticsToStatusFile (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • Worker.writeConnectionsStatisticsToStatusFile (cyclomatic 16) src/Worker.php:2231 — Worker.writeConnectionsStatisticsToStatusFile has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AsyncTcpConnection.checkConnection (cognitive 106) · ×1
  • AsyncTcpConnection.checkConnection (cognitive 106) src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:379 — AsyncTcpConnection.checkConnection has cognitive complexity 106 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 91, boolean chains 9, error handling 6 (nesting depth added 63). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TcpConnection.baseRead (cognitive 98) · ×1
  • TcpConnection.baseRead (cognitive 98) src/Connection/TcpConnection.php:669 — TcpConnection.baseRead has cognitive complexity 98 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 66, error handling 18, boolean chains 12, loops 2 (nesting depth added 51). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Ws.input (cognitive 88) · ×1
  • Ws.input (cognitive 88) src/Protocols/Ws.php:59 — Ws.input has cognitive complexity 88 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 70, error handling 16, match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 55). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Websocket.input (cognitive 84) · ×1
  • Websocket.input (cognitive 84) src/Protocols/Websocket.php:88 — Websocket.input has cognitive complexity 84 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 66, error handling 16, match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 54). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Worker.parseCommand (cognitive 54) · ×1
  • Worker.parseCommand (cognitive 54) src/Worker.php:1073 — Worker.parseCommand has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 40, boolean chains 7, loops 5, match/switch 1, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Worker.monitorWorkersForLinux (cognitive 47) · ×1
  • Worker.monitorWorkersForLinux (cognitive 47) src/Worker.php:1849 — Worker.monitorWorkersForLinux has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 35, error handling 6, loops 4, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 33). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Worker.stopAll (cognitive 44) · ×1
  • Worker.stopAll (cognitive 44) src/Worker.php:2040 — Worker.stopAll has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22, loops 9, boolean chains 6, ternaries 4, error handling 3 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TcpConnection.send (cognitive 37) · ×1
  • TcpConnection.send (cognitive 37) src/Connection/TcpConnection.php:454 — TcpConnection.send has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21, error handling 9, boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Http.inputChunked (cognitive 36) · ×1
  • Http.inputChunked (cognitive 36) src/Protocols/Http.php:217 — Http.inputChunked has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 27, loops 4, boolean chains 3, ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Request.parseUploadFile (cognitive 35) · ×1
  • Request.parseUploadFile (cognitive 35) src/Protocols/Http/Request.php:638 — Request.parseUploadFile has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 29, boolean chains 3, match/switch 2, loops 1 (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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Worker.reload (cognitive 35) · ×1
  • Worker.reload (cognitive 35) src/Worker.php:1962 — Worker.reload has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23, error handling 7, loops 3, ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Http.decodeChunked (cognitive 34) · ×1
  • Http.decodeChunked (cognitive 34) src/Protocols/Http.php:312 — Http.decodeChunked has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24, boolean chains 4, loops 4, ternaries 2 (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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Select.run (cognitive 33) · ×1
  • Select.run (cognitive 33) src/Events/Select.php:386 — Select.run has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20, loops 7, boolean chains 3, error handling 3 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Http.input (cognitive 32) · ×1
  • Http.input (cognitive 32) src/Protocols/Http.php:114 — Http.input has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22, boolean chains 8, loops 1, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Worker.acceptUdpConnection (cognitive 31) · ×1
  • Worker.acceptUdpConnection (cognitive 31) src/Worker.php:2743 — Worker.acceptUdpConnection has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23, loops 4, boolean chains 2, error handling 2 (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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AsyncTcpConnection.connect (cognitive 30) · ×1
  • AsyncTcpConnection.connect (cognitive 30) src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:263 — AsyncTcpConnection.connect has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23, boolean chains 4, ternaries 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Http.encode (cognitive 29) · ×1
  • Http.encode (cognitive 29) src/Protocols/Http.php:378 — Http.encode has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16, loops 6, ternaries 6, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Worker.log (cognitive 28) · ×1
  • Worker.log (cognitive 28) src/Worker.php:2343 — Worker.log has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19, loops 6, ternaries 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Response.__toString (cognitive 26) · ×1
  • Response.__toString (cognitive 26) src/Protocols/Http/Response.php:532 — Response.__toString has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19, loops 4, ternaries 3 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Worker.listen (cognitive 26) · ×1
  • Worker.listen (cognitive 26) src/Worker.php:2440 — Worker.listen has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20, boolean chains 4, ternaries 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Response.createHeadForFile (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • Response.createHeadForFile (cognitive 23) src/Protocols/Http/Response.php:470 — Response.createHeadForFile has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, loops 4, boolean chains 2, ternaries 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Worker.writeStatisticsToStatusFile (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • Worker.writeStatisticsToStatusFile (cognitive 23) src/Worker.php:2141 — Worker.writeStatisticsToStatusFile has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 13, if/else 5, ternaries 5 (nesting depth added 12). 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Worker.writeConnectionsStatisticsToStatusFile (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • Worker.writeConnectionsStatisticsToStatusFile (cognitive 23) src/Worker.php:2231 — Worker.writeConnectionsStatisticsToStatusFile has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, ternaries 8, loops 3 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Websocket.dealHandshake (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • Websocket.dealHandshake (cognitive 22) src/Protocols/Websocket.php:374 — Websocket.dealHandshake has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16, error handling 4, loops 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AsyncTcpConnection.__construct (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • AsyncTcpConnection.__construct (cognitive 21) src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:179 — AsyncTcpConnection.__construct has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19, ternaries 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Websocket.encode (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • Websocket.encode (cognitive 21) src/Protocols/Websocket.php:258 — Websocket.encode has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, error handling 7, boolean chains 1, 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Timer.tick (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • Timer.tick (cognitive 21) src/Timer.php:206 — Timer.tick has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, error handling 4, loops 4, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Worker.formatProcessStatusData (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • Worker.formatProcessStatusData (cognitive 21) src/Worker.php:1238 — Worker.formatProcessStatusData has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18, loops 2, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Request.sessionId (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • Request.sessionId (cognitive 19) src/Protocols/Http/Request.php:370 — Request.sessionId has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9, ternaries 7, boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Worker.initWorkers (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • Worker.initWorkers (cognitive 19) src/Worker.php:843 — Worker.initWorkers has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11, boolean chains 3, loops 3, ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Worker.displayUI (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • Worker.displayUI (cognitive 19) src/Worker.php:952 — Worker.displayUI has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7, boolean chains 5, loops 4, ternaries 3 (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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TcpConnection.baseWrite (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • TcpConnection.baseWrite (cognitive 18) src/Connection/TcpConnection.php:838 — TcpConnection.baseWrite has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, error handling 4 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Ws.encode (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • Ws.encode (cognitive 18) src/Protocols/Ws.php:229 — Ws.encode has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9, error handling 7, boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Ws.sendHandshake (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • Ws.sendHandshake (cognitive 18) src/Protocols/Ws.php:340 — Ws.sendHandshake has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8, ternaries 7, loops 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TcpConnection.destroy (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • TcpConnection.destroy (cognitive 16) src/Connection/TcpConnection.php:1149 — TcpConnection.destroy has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9, error handling 5, boolean chains 2 (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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Worker.forkOneWorkerForLinux (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • Worker.forkOneWorkerForLinux (cognitive 16) src/Worker.php:1703 — Worker.forkOneWorkerForLinux has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11, ternaries 3, loops 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Protocols/Websocket.php:195 — src/Protocols/Websocket.php:195-208 | src/Protocols/Ws.php:161-175 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Protocols/Websocket.php:195` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/Worker.php:1579 — src/Worker.php:1579-1591 | src/Worker.php:1728-1740 — 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 `src/Worker.php:1579` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Protocols/Websocket.php:176 — src/Protocols/Websocket.php:176-186 | src/Protocols/Ws.php:143-153 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Protocols/Websocket.php:176` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:215 — src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:215-224 | src/Connection/AsyncUdpConnection.php:85-94 | src/Worker.php:2562-2571 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:215` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:400 — src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:400-408 | src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:414-422 — 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 `src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:400` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Protocols/Ws.php:151 — src/Protocols/Ws.php:151-157 | src/Protocols/Ws.php:175-182 — 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 `src/Protocols/Ws.php:151` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:454 — src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:454-459 | src/Connection/AsyncTcpConnection.php:518-523 — 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.
Recommendation — 4 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability · Test reliability not included · ×1
  • Test reliability not included — Test source is present (.php) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 4 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/Events/Select.php, src/Events/Fiber.php, src/Protocols/Http/Session/RedisSessionHandler.php, src/Connection/UdpConnection.php. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D19 · Documentation Quality · The 'Basic Usage' section only covers a single protocol (WebSocket) and omits other supported transports like HTTP, TCP, and SSL with code examples. · ×1
  • The 'Basic Usage' section only covers a single protocol (WebSocket) and omits other supported transports like HTTP, TCP, and SSL with code examples. README.md — Add a short subsection for each supported transport type (HTTP server, AsyncTCP connection, SSL/TLS), showing the required composer dependency and minimal example.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not included · ×1
  • Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector — Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.php) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (Clover XML — `vendor/bin/phpunit --coverage-clover coverage.xml`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored.
Info — 2 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Dependency hygiene not measured · ×1
  • Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene — This repository's dependency manifest (composer.json) was found, but this pass cannot parse it for hygiene, so no package was assessed. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED — a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. This row is about dependency HYGIENE — outdated, deprecated or unmaintained direct dependencies; known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D38 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesnone (no readable dependency manifest)—none (no readable dependency manifest): not present in this environment0—
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner: not applicable — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.0—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0—

Run 019fcf0b-8c8c-7405-a08b-2c24e778611a · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Warnings: 71 · Recommendations: 4 · Info: 2 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 04-08-2026 @ 23:11 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

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