Executive summary
Template / example. This repo declares itself a template, kata, sample or demo — code to read or copy, not operate — so the ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A and what remains is judged accordingly.
This system holds an adequate overall standing of 49%, indicating a workable asset that carries specific, manageable risks. While the underlying architecture is robust and performance is excellent, the business faces a critical compliance gap in accessibility that threatens legal exposure and user inclusion. The system is small, comprising roughly 14,000 lines of production code, with a rebuild cost estimated at just €13,000 for a single engineer. This low barrier to entry means the value at stake is modest, but the cost of inaction in key areas is disproportionately high relative to the effort required to fix them.
The most significant risk is Accessibility, which scores poorly at 36%. This is not merely a technical debt issue but a direct business liability. Without proper text alternatives for images, captions for video, and semantic structure, the application excludes users with disabilities and violates regulatory standards. The current tooling lacks the necessary checks to prevent these regressions, meaning every new feature risks compounding the problem. Remediation here offers the highest leverage, as the fixes are straightforward but essential for market reach and legal safety.
Conversely, the system’s Operational Stability is strong. The architecture scores well at 86%, suggesting that changes are unlikely to cause unintended ripple effects. Performance is perfect, and code health is adequate, meaning the core logic is maintainable and reliable. However, maturity and production readiness lag, with scores of 68% and 58% respectively. This indicates that while the code works, it may be difficult for a new team to pick up, and operational safeguards like comprehensive testing and observability are not yet fully mature. Security is generally sound, though supply chain hygiene needs attention.
Focus first on implementing accessibility standards. Add alt text, captions, and semantic landmarks immediately, and integrate an accessibility linter into the CI pipeline to prevent future violations. This single action addresses the highest-impact risk with minimal cost. The rest of the improvements can follow, as the system’s strong foundation supports gradual enhancement. Note that domain modeling and event-driven patterns were not measured, so the picture is partial regarding those specific architectural styles.
Code Health
52%
Adequate · gated by R1
Architecture
86%
Adequate · gated by D26
Maturity
68%
Strong
Readiness
58%
Adequate · gated by P3
Security
81%
Strong
Accessibility
36%
Weak · gated by AC1, AC3
Performance
100% ★
Exemplary
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Accessibility 36% · 46% weightCode Health 52% · 25% weightReadiness 58% · 14% weightMaturity 68% · 8% weightSecurity 81% · 4% weightArchitecture 86% · 2% weightPerformance 100% · 1% weight
Raise Accessibility 36 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 49 → ~60.
Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (3+)
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €4,400–€22,000
| Cost to rebuild | €4,400–€22,000 |
|---|---|
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 49% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 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 ~€13,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Accessibility at 36% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.
2
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
3
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add an a11y linter that can read your UI — no component framework was detected, so the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins would have nothing to lint; use an HTML-template a11y linter (html-eslint, htmlhint) or run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, then assert with jest-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Accessibility at 36%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video. The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · JavaScript
Cyclomatic Complexity
9.1
D2 · JavaScript
Cognitive Complexity
9.1
D3 · JavaScript
God Classes
7.5
D4 · JavaScript
Code Duplication
10.0
R10 · React / TS
Code Duplication
6.8
R2 · React / TS
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
R3 · React / TS
Large Files
10.0
X25 · Repo
Inert configuration knob
10.0
X29 · Repo
Per-element action decided by a fixed element
10.0
The Bad
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
At a glance — Security
The Good
At a glance — Accessibility
At a glance — Performance
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 33 | High / Critical |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 2 | Medium |
Roadmap
First, ensure all media elements have appropriate text alternatives and captions to support diverse user needs. Next, establish a solid page structure by defining language, titles, and landmarks, while simultaneously providing programmatic labels for every form control and button. To sustain these improvements, integrate an HTML-focused accessibility linter and automated testing into your CI pipeline to enforce standards early. Finally, polish the visual experience by maintaining visible focus indicators, respecting reduced motion preferences, and ensuring sufficient color contrast.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video. | +11.9 pts | Medium | Text alternatives |
| Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh. | +11.9 pts | Medium | Page structure |
| Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add an a11y linter that can read your UI — no component framework was detected, so the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins would have nothing to lint; use an HTML-template a11y linter (html-eslint, htmlhint) or run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, then assert with jest-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI. | +11.8 pts | Medium | A11y enforcement |
| Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label. | +11.5 pts | Medium | Forms & labels |
| Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1. | +10.4 pts | Medium | Visual & motion safety |
| Adopt TypeScript for the frontend: add a typecheck step to the build, then either type-check the existing JavaScript in place (`checkJs`/JSDoc types) or convert the highest-traffic modules first — no file is typed today, so this is an adoption, not a clean-up. | +4.3 pts | Medium | Type Safety |
| Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value. | +4.2 pts | Medium | Dead Code |
| Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract. | +3.9 pts | Medium | Code Duplication |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 4.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 5.7 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 5.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/js/main.js | 7.8 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: main.initUI (cyclomatic 21) |
| src/content/peerconnection/constraints/js/main.js | 7.8 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: main.showRemoteStats (cyclomatic 18) |
| test/interop/connection.test.js | 7.8 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions: establishes a connection |
| REDACTED | 7.9 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.9 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.9 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED |
| src/content/getusermedia/exposure/js/main.js | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: loadProperties (cognitive 19) |
| src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: main.start (cognitive 17) |
| REDACTED | 9.0 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): Low: REDACTED |
| README.md | 9.3 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Documentation: no installation or build instructions |
| REDACTED | 9.3 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): Low: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 9.3 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): Low: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 9.3 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): Low: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 9.3 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): Low: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 9.3 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): Low: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 9.3 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): Low: REDACTED |
How the grades work
Critical — 75
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Serious — 125
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Minor — 36
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 33
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 44 of 48 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 48 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D13D15D16D19D21D26D28D29D30D34D35D43AC1AC2AC3AC6AC7AX10AX3AX4AX8M1M3M4P1P3PF3R1R10R2R3R6R7R8R9S1X24X25X29
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 218 of 236 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. This repository's 1 package.json manifest(s) WERE read and their pinning discipline assessed; what went unanswered is the currency half, because answering it needs a lockfile resolved to CONCRETE versions and this repository commits none — a package.json states version RANGES, and a range names no particular release to be behind. So registry.npmjs.org was never asked, and there was nothing here for it to grade. This is a true statement about the repository and NOT a gap on our side: no lockfile reader we could write would find anything here to read, so there is no capability behind this row to build.
- D14 License Compliance — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — this repository declares package.json manifests but commits no lockfile this pass can resolve (npm, pnpm, yarn and bun each write a different one, and `bun.lockb` is a binary format with no published shape), so the set of packages it actually ships is not resolvable from the checkout: its declarations carry version RANGES, and grading whichever release happens to be newest today would be a verdict about a dependency graph this repository has not pinned. Commit the lock and this dimension grades its production dependencies against registry.npmjs.org. NOT a finding that this repository's licences are compliant: this dimension asserts nothing about its licensing in either direction.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. This repository's source is written only in languages whose packages are published through a manifest, and no manifest in the tree makes a publication act: either there is no package manifest of any ecosystem (no package.json, pyproject.toml, setup.py, gemspec, Cargo.toml, pom.xml, build.gradle, composer.json, pubspec.yaml or mix.exs), or every one present declares in its package manager's own terms that it is not published (an npm package marked "private": true, a Cargo package with publish = false, a pubspec with publish_to: none, a Composer "project", a Poetry project with package-mode = false, or the "Private :: Do Not Upload" classifier). With no publication act there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — measured, with a gap in what it reached — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) (npm) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; REDACTED was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that REDACTED is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies — measured, with a gap in what it reached — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) (npm) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; REDACTED was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that REDACTED is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
- AC2 Forms & labels — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 28 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 68.
- AC3 Page structure — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 141 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 181.
- AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
- C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
- C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
- ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
- R10 Code Duplication — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 44 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 84.
- X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no Java or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Scala source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Scala source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
- 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. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- 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.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
- AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
- AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
- AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
- AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- 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
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
6 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was peer.peer at 23.
peer.peer (cyclomatic 23)REDACTED:18
main.initUI (cyclomatic 21)src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/js/main.js:135
main.showRemoteStats (cyclomatic 18)src/content/peerconnection/constraints/js/main.js:202
What to do
- Resolve the 1 peer.peer (cyclomatic 23) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 main.initUI (cyclomatic 21) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 main.showRemoteStats (cyclomatic 18) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
7 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was main.showRemoteStats at 20.
main.showRemoteStats (cognitive 20)src/content/peerconnection/constraints/js/main.js:202
peer::onmessage (cognitive 19)REDACTED:84
loadProperties (cognitive 19)src/content/getusermedia/exposure/js/main.js:31
main.start (cognitive 17)src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:105
What to do
- Resolve the 1 main.showRemoteStats (cognitive 20) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 peer finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 loadProperties (cognitive 19) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
1 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.
FunctionTooLong: main.initUIsrc/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/js/main.js:135
What to do
- Resolve the 1 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
2 production modules (source-import), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). No manifest declares this repository's modules, so the modules are its top-level source directories and the edges the imports between them, and main-sequence distance (abstractness) is not computed for these modules yet.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 15 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
1 test methods: 1 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 1 `it`/`test` case(s) across 1 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 1 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 1 tests.
No assertions: establishes a connectiontest/interop/connection.test.js:38
Test project verifies nothing: the repository roottest/interop/connection.test.js:38
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with connection.test.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Test project verifies nothing finding(s) in Test Quality — start with connection.test.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). JavaScript/TypeScript (jest via `npm install --ignore-scripts` (no lockfile) in the repository root (36 tests)): measured (0 flaky).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
2 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/content/datachannel/basic/js/main.js. Counted over 55 of the 103 production source files in this repository: 43 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 5 have no attributable history left to measure.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's root README (README.md) is a clear, well-structured overview of the WebRTC samples at webrtc.github.io/samples, with installation and contribution guidance plus an issue template. The src/content/extensions/multipleroutes/src/README.md documents the Chrome WebRTC network limiter extension for privacy settings, covering what it does, upgrade behavior, notes on performance tradeoffs, and agreeing to terms — all excellent for its directory. Both READMEs are well written but only the root one gives an overview of the repository; the multipleroutes README is internal-focused (the limiter's purpose, upgrade path) with no context for a reader who does not install it.
Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
1 of 1 build units (npm) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
33 finding(s): 0 critical, 7 high, 4 medium, 22 low. 6 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 2 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 6 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable dependencies in the 1 ecosystem(s) that were scanned (npm). Partial dependency scan: 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (npm), and the findings above are real and complete for them. REDACTED was not scanned (REDACTED: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.
REDACTED
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
25 of 60 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js. Counted over 60 of the 103 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Orphaned files with no living knowledge
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D43 · Malicious Dependencies
No known-vulnerable dependencies in the 1 ecosystem(s) that were scanned (npm). Partial dependency scan: 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (npm), and the findings above are real and complete for them. REDACTED was not scanned (REDACTED: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.
REDACTED
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AC1 · Text alternatives
- A <canvas> with no aria-label/title and no inner fallback content can't be described by assistive tech. Add a name or fallback content. (×17) — REDACTED:39, REDACTED:39, src/content/capture/canvas-video/index.html:39, …
- Video with no captions <track> offers no captions. Add a <track kind="captions"> pointing at a WebVTT file for this video (or confirm captions are provided another way). (×4) — src/content/capture/video-contenthint/index.html:42, REDACTED:39, src/content/capture/video-video/index.html:39, …
What to do
- Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC2 · Forms & labels
- This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label. (×2) — REDACTED:49, REDACTED:48
- This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. (×32) — REDACTED:54, REDACTED:53, REDACTED:54, …
- This <label> has no for and wraps no form control, so it names nothing: assistive tech never announces it, and clicking the caption focuses no field. Note that an id on the label is not an association — it is the TARGET of one, so a control still has to point at it. Give the label for="<the control's id>", move the control inside the label, or point the control's aria-labelledby at this label's id. (×6) — src/content/devices/multi/index.html:46, src/content/devices/multi/index.html:53, src/content/devices/multi/index.html:68, …
What to do
- Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC3 · Page structure
- The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en"). (×14) — REDACTED:9, src/content/capture/canvas-filter/index.html:9, REDACTED:9, …
- No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×13) — REDACTED:9, src/content/capture/canvas-filter/index.html:9, REDACTED:9, …
- user-scalable=no/0 or a maximum-scale below 2 stops low-vision users zooming to 200%. Remove the zoom restriction from the viewport meta. (×13) — REDACTED:14, src/content/capture/canvas-filter/index.html:14, REDACTED:14, …
What to do
- Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC6 · Visual & motion safety
- `button` sets color: white on background-color: #d84a38 — 4.2:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them. — src/css/main.css:43
- `.file-upload` sets color: white on background-color: #d84a38 — 4.2:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them. — src/content/getusermedia/record/css/main.css:16
What to do
- Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement
- No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (an a11y linter that can read your UI — no component framework was detected, so the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins would have nothing to lint; use an HTML-template a11y linter (html-eslint, htmlhint) or run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 68 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
What to do
- Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add an a11y linter that can read your UI — no component framework was detected, so the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins would have nothing to lint; use an HTML-template a11y linter (html-eslint, htmlhint) or run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, then assert with jest-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation
- `src/content` (production) references the test project `test`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
What to do
- Remove every production → test project reference: extract any shared test helper into a production support library (which the tests reference), or invert the dependency so the test project depends on production — not the reverse.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- 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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README claims samples are tested locally but the evidence shows only an HTTP server start command with no local test runner — searched for: `local test runner`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
- README states 'run from webrtc.github.io/samples' but the repo is a self-contained samples repository, not a hosted site — reported by the model that read the README against this repository; no term search was run for this one, so nothing here has been checked against the tree. Treat it as a reading to confirm, not as a measured contradiction: verify it against the code before acting on it, and if the footprint it describes does exist, this row is wrong.
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README claims samples are tested locally but the evidence shows only an HTTP server start command with no local test runner; README states 'run from webrtc.github.io/samples' but the repo is a self-contained samples repository, not a hosted site.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
- A CI pipeline exists but no build step was matched — changes may merge without the build ever running. 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 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 built before merge.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/javascript`, or eslint-plugin-security as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 1539 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
- Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/javascript`, or eslint-plugin-security — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene
Do you agree with this assessment?
R1 · Type Safety
- 0 typed · 107 plain JS — the untyped files are src/content/capture/canvas-filter/js/main.js, src/content/capture/canvas-pc/js/main.js, src/content/capture/canvas-record/js/main.js, src/content/capture/canvas-video/js/main.js, src/content/capture/video-contenthint/js/main.js, src/content/capture/video-pc/js/main.js (+101 more).
What to do
- Adopt TypeScript for the frontend: add a typecheck step to the build, then either type-check the existing JavaScript in place (`checkJs`/JSDoc types) or convert the highest-traffic modules first — no file is typed today, so this is an adoption, not a clean-up.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R10 · Code Duplication
- 35 duplicated blocks under src/content/peerconnection/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories always-negotiate-datachannels, audio, bandwidth, change-codecs, constraints, create-offer (+12 more sibling(s) not listed) — 31 of them are reported below, and 4 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 35 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 35 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 35 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — REDACTED:12
- 29 duplicated blocks under src/content/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories capture, datachannel, devices, extensions, getusermedia, insertable-streams (+1 more sibling(s) not listed) — 24 of them are reported below, and 5 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 29 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 29 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 29 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:11
- src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:11 · src/content/peerconnection/change-codecs/js/main.js:11 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 1324 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:11
- src/content/insertable-streams/video-analyzer/js/main.js:55 · src/content/peerconnection/pc1/js/main.js:36 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 913 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/content/insertable-streams/video-analyzer/js/main.js:55
- REDACTED:12 · src/content/peerconnection/bandwidth/js/main.js:14 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 668 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — REDACTED:12
- src/content/datachannel/channel/js/main.js:25 · src/content/peerconnection/channel/js/main.js:27 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 437 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/content/datachannel/channel/js/main.js:25
- src/content/capture/canvas-pc/js/main.js:43 · src/content/capture/video-pc/js/main.js:67 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 647 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/content/capture/canvas-pc/js/main.js:43
- src/content/peerconnection/bandwidth/js/main.js:60 · src/content/peerconnection/per-frame-callback/js/main.js:96 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 462 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/content/peerconnection/bandwidth/js/main.js:60
- src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/main.js:93 · src/content/peerconnection/webaudio-output/js/main.js:79 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 500 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/main.js:93
- src/content/datachannel/basic/js/main.js:82 · src/content/datachannel/channel/js/main.js:80 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 229 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/content/datachannel/basic/js/main.js:82
- src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:219 · src/content/insertable-streams/video-analyzer/js/main.js:115 · src/content/peerconnection/pc1/js/main.js:99 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 3 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:219
- src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:359 · src/content/peerconnection/bandwidth/js/main.js:269 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:359
- src/content/peerconnection/negotiate-timing/js/main.js:41 · src/content/peerconnection/upgrade/js/main.js:25 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 276 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/content/peerconnection/negotiate-timing/js/main.js:41
- src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/main.js:51 · src/content/peerconnection/webaudio-output/js/main.js:45 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/main.js:51
- src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/main.js:121 · src/content/peerconnection/upgrade/js/main.js:99 · src/content/peerconnection/webaudio-output/js/main.js:102 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/main.js:121
- src/content/getusermedia/exposure/js/main.js:79 · src/content/getusermedia/pan-tilt-zoom/js/main.js:51 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/getusermedia/exposure/js/main.js:79
- src/content/capture/video-pc/js/main.js:77 · src/content/peerconnection/upgrade/js/main.js:89 · src/content/peerconnection/webaudio-output/js/main.js:92 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 3 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — src/content/capture/video-pc/js/main.js:77
- src/content/datachannel/basic/js/test.js:11 · src/content/datachannel/datatransfer/js/test.js:14 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/datachannel/basic/js/test.js:11
- src/content/peerconnection/bandwidth/js/main.js:166 · src/content/peerconnection/per-frame-callback/js/main.js:187 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/peerconnection/bandwidth/js/main.js:166
- src/content/peerconnection/upgrade/js/main.js:150 · src/content/peerconnection/webaudio-output/js/main.js:154 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/peerconnection/upgrade/js/main.js:150
- src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/test.js:14 · src/content/peerconnection/upgrade/js/test.js:14 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/test.js:14
- src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:180 · src/content/peerconnection/pc1/js/main.js:71 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:180
- src/content/insertable-streams/endtoend-encryption/js/test.js:14 · src/content/peerconnection/multiple/js/test.js:14 · src/content/peerconnection/negotiate-timing/js/test.js:14 · src/content/peerconnection/pc1/js/test.js:14 · +3 more site(s) not listed — the 7 copies are spread across 7 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/insertable-streams/endtoend-encryption/js/test.js:14
- src/content/peerconnection/munge-sdp/js/main.js:116 · src/content/peerconnection/munge-sdp/js/main.js:172 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 74 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/content/peerconnection/munge-sdp/js/main.js:116
- src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/main.js:11 · src/content/peerconnection/upgrade/js/main.js:11 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/main.js:11
- REDACTED:211 · src/content/peerconnection/states/js/main.js:189 · src/content/peerconnection/webaudio-input/js/main.js:99 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — REDACTED:211
- src/content/capture/canvas-filter/js/main.js:11 · src/content/capture/worker-process/js/main.js:11 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — src/content/capture/canvas-filter/js/main.js:11
- src/content/peerconnection/change-codecs/js/main.js:177 · src/content/peerconnection/pc1/js/main.js:157 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/peerconnection/change-codecs/js/main.js:177
- src/content/peerconnection/change-codecs/js/test.js:43 · src/content/peerconnection/negotiate-timing/js/test.js:37 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — src/content/peerconnection/change-codecs/js/test.js:43
- src/content/datachannel/filetransfer/js/test.js:11 · src/content/devices/input-output/js/test.js:9 · src/content/getusermedia/gum/js/test.js:11 · src/content/insertable-streams/endtoend-encryption/js/test.js:11 · +8 more site(s) not listed — the 12 copies are spread across 12 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 12 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — src/content/datachannel/filetransfer/js/test.js:11
- src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/js/video-mirror-helper.js:60 · src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/js/video-sink.js:34 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 80 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/js/video-mirror-helper.js:60
- src/content/peerconnection/pc1/js/main.js:142 · src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/main.js:148 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/peerconnection/pc1/js/main.js:142
- src/content/peerconnection/states/js/main.js:137 · src/content/peerconnection/states/js/main.js:155 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/peerconnection/states/js/main.js:137
- src/content/datachannel/basic/js/test.js:8 · src/content/datachannel/datatransfer/js/test.js:11 · src/content/datachannel/filetransfer/js/test.js:11 · src/content/devices/input-output/js/test.js:9 · +13 more site(s) not listed — the 17 copies are spread across 17 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 17 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — src/content/datachannel/basic/js/test.js:8
- src/content/datachannel/channel/js/test.js:14 · src/content/peerconnection/channel/js/test.js:14 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/datachannel/channel/js/test.js:14
- src/content/datachannel/filetransfer/js/test.js:14 · src/content/getusermedia/gum/js/test.js:14 · src/content/insertable-streams/endtoend-encryption/js/test.js:14 · src/content/peerconnection/audio/js/test.js:13 · +7 more site(s) not listed — the 11 copies are spread across 11 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/datachannel/filetransfer/js/test.js:14
- src/content/getusermedia/canvas/js/main.js:21 · src/content/getusermedia/filter/js/main.js:26 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/getusermedia/canvas/js/main.js:21
- src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/js/camera-source.js:18 · src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/js/peer-connection-source.js:28 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 70 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/js/camera-source.js:18
- src/content/peerconnection/multiple/js/main.js:58 · src/content/peerconnection/munge-sdp/js/main.js:70 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/peerconnection/multiple/js/main.js:58
- src/content/peerconnection/munge-sdp/js/main.js:67 · src/content/peerconnection/states/js/main.js:56 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/content/peerconnection/munge-sdp/js/main.js:67
What to do
- Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- onmessage has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 19; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — REDACTED:84
- start has cyclomatic complexity 14 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/content/devices/input-output/js/main.js:117
- buildDriver has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — test/webdriver.js:50
- animate has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/js/canvas-source.js:103
- showRemoteStats has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/content/peerconnection/constraints/js/main.js:202
Do you agree with this assessment?
R3 · Large Files
Do you agree with this assessment?
R6 · Tooling
- test ✓ · lint ✓ · typecheck ✗ — read from this repository's package.json scripts and corroborated against its CI workflows. A script counts when its name or command matches the step: `test` for the suite, `lint` or `prettier` for linting, `typecheck`/`type-check`/`tsc` for type checking. ✗ therefore means no script or CI step under those names was found, NOT that the step is absent from your pipeline — a task invoked by a runner this check does not read, or named something else entirely, is not seen and is worth confirming before acting on a cross. A ✓ means the wiring is DECLARED — a script or CI step under those names exists. It is not a statement that the step passes, or that it runs at all: nothing here installs a dependency or executes a suite.
What to do
- Add type checking (adopt TypeScript, or type-check the existing JavaScript with `checkJs`) as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R7 · Dead Code
- Unreachable from the 78 application, 2 tooling and 5 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Nothing this repository declares compiles or type-checks these files, so a wrong deletion here would raise no compile error — gate removals on `npm test`, which loads the modules, and note that it only covers what it exercises. An undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
- no import path from any entry point (78 application, 2 tooling, 5 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make (×24) — src/content/insertable-streams/endtoend-encryption/js/worker.js, src/content/datachannel/channel/js/test.js, src/content/insertable-streams/endtoend-encryption/js/test.js, …
What to do
- Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R8 · Dependency Hygiene
Do you agree with this assessment?
R9 · Circular Imports
Do you agree with this assessment?
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- `https://webrtc.github.io/adapter/adapter-latest.js` is executed by this page with no Subresource Integrity. Whoever can answer that request — the CDN, anyone who compromises it, anyone on the network path — runs arbitrary script in this page's origin, with its session. The URL also names no version, so it resolves to whatever that origin serves at fetch time — the executed bytes can change with nobody touching this repository. 50 such include(s) across the repository's markup. — REDACTED:77
What to do
- Pin third-party scripts and verify them: name an exact version in the URL and add an `integrity="sha384-…"` hash alongside `crossorigin="anonymous"` (both are required — an integrity hash on a cross-origin script without `crossorigin` is not evaluated, it blocks the script). Where the vendor ships a continuously-updated loader and publishes no stable hash (tag managers, analytics, chat widgets), Subresource Integrity is not available: constrain it instead with a `Content-Security-Policy` that names the exact origins allowed to execute, and drop the script from the pages that do not need it. Where the page is shipped inside a package that others host, prefer vendoring the asset and serving it from the app’s own origin, so no consumer inherits a third-party dependency they did not choose.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
Do you agree with this assessment?
X25 · Inert configuration knob
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
Do you agree with this assessment?
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
| Dimension | WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| AC1 · Text alternatives | 1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.5 | Partial signal |
| AC2 · Forms & labels | 1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC3 · Page structure | 1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC6 · Visual & motion safety | 1.4.3, 2.4.7 | Partial — literal CSS only |
| AC7 · A11y enforcement | enforcement — no page criterion | Enforcement posture (process) |
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 52% | Adequate — gated by R1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 86% | Adequate — gated by D26 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 68% | Strong | Solid. |
| Readiness | 58% | Adequate — gated by P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 81% | Strong | Solid. |
| Accessibility | 36% | Weak — gated by AC1, AC3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Performance | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Not evidenced — 6 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- 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.
- 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
Not included — 76 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No ARIA usage found in the parsed markup — AC5 not applicable here.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's JavaScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
- AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
- AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- 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.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the dev server did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time — no runtime evidence This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a TypeORM/MikroORM/sequelize-typescript/NestJS-Mongoose entity, a Mongoose schema, a Sequelize or Drizzle table, a Knex migration or a Prisma model — and no database or data-store client in the source either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect. If it does persist personal data (through a hosted backend configured outside this repository, for instance), the controls belong to wherever that data is stored.
- 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.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency currency not established — this repository commits no lockfile to resolve
- D14 License Compliance — npm licences not graded — this npm repository commits no lockfile this pass can resolve
- 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 — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
- 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). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample; tests are deferred to the application built from it, so coverage is not scored here.
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- M2 Architecture documentation — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — formal architecture documentation (ADRs, C4 diagrams) is deferred to a real application built from it, so its absence is not a defect here.
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P2 Observability — This repository's JavaScript/TypeScript source (1 module(s), 111 file(s) read) declares no entry point and bootstraps no server, and nothing here deploys a service — it is a library, run inside whatever hosts it, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. If it grows a binary or a service, the dimension reactivates.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JavaScript/TypeScript source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
- P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `jest --coverage --coverageReporters=lcovonly`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for tinybench, mitata, benchmark.js, benny or vitest `bench(...)` calls in files that import them (or `*.bench.*` files), or one of those in a package.json, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: TypeScript/JavaScript runs on a garbage-collected runtime that gives a program no allocation-control idiom to choose on a hot path — no pools, stack allocation or value types — so allocation awareness is not something this code can be rated on.
- R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
- R4 Test Coverage — 5 test file(s) reach none of 102 production file(s) via imports — exercised outside the JS import graph (integration/bundled), not import-reachable
- R5 Dependency Freshness — no package-lock.json — dependency freshness not measured (would require an npm lockfile); JS/npm CVEs are scored in D30 (Dependency Vulnerabilities), which answers every ecosystem
- X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — Not applicable: this check looks for a collection written by a callback on one thread while the body waiting on it touches it on another, and in this repository's languages no collection is reachable from two threads at once. TypeScript/JavaScript runs every callback on the one thread that owns its objects: a callback runs only when the body waiting on it has yielded, never alongside it, and a worker thread receives a COPY of what it is sent. A SharedArrayBuffer carries raw bytes, never an Array, Map or Set, so no collection is reachable from two threads at once. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — 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
- X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Critical — 75 finding(s)
AC2 · Forms & labels
- <input> without a programmatic label REDACTED:54
- <input> without a programmatic label src/content/getusermedia/exposure/index.html:56
- <input> without a programmatic label src/content/getusermedia/exposure/index.html:61
- <input> without a programmatic label src/content/getusermedia/exposure/index.html:66
- <input> without a programmatic label src/content/getusermedia/pan-tilt-zoom/index.html:50
- <input> without a programmatic label src/content/getusermedia/pan-tilt-zoom/index.html:54
- <input> without a programmatic label src/content/getusermedia/pan-tilt-zoom/index.html:58
- <input> without a programmatic label REDACTED:60
- <input> without a programmatic label REDACTED:103
- <input> without a programmatic label REDACTED:105
- <input> without a programmatic label REDACTED:106
- <input> without a programmatic label REDACTED:107
- <input> without a programmatic label src/content/insertable-streams/endtoend-encryption/index.html:47
- <input> without a programmatic label src/content/insertable-streams/endtoend-encryption/index.html:48
- <input> without a programmatic label src/content/insertable-streams/endtoend-encryption/index.html:54
- <input> without a programmatic label src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/index.html:56
AC2 · Forms & labels
- <select> without a programmatic label src/content/devices/multi/index.html:47
- <select> without a programmatic label src/content/devices/multi/index.html:54
- <select> without a programmatic label src/content/devices/multi/index.html:69
- <select> without a programmatic label src/content/devices/multi/index.html:79
- <select> without a programmatic label src/content/extensions/svc/index.html:54
- <select> without a programmatic label src/content/extensions/svc/index.html:59
- <select> without a programmatic label src/content/getusermedia/exposure/index.html:50
- <select> without a programmatic label src/content/getusermedia/exposure/index.html:71
- <select> without a programmatic label src/content/getusermedia/getdisplaymedia/index.html:40
- <select> without a programmatic label REDACTED:56
- <select> without a programmatic label src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/index.html:49
- <select> without a programmatic label src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/index.html:60
- <select> without a programmatic label src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/index.html:71
- <select> without a programmatic label src/content/insertable-streams/webgpu/index.html:49
AC3 · Page structure
- <html> without a lang REDACTED:9
- <html> without a lang src/content/capture/canvas-filter/index.html:9
- <html> without a lang REDACTED:9
- <html> without a lang REDACTED:9
- <html> without a lang src/content/capture/canvas-video/index.html:9
- <html> without a lang src/content/capture/video-contenthint/index.html:9
- <html> without a lang REDACTED:9
- <html> without a lang src/content/capture/video-video/index.html:9
- <html> without a lang src/content/capture/worker-process/index.html:9
- <html> without a lang REDACTED:9
- <html> without a lang REDACTED:9
- <html> without a lang REDACTED:9
- <html> without a lang REDACTED:9
- <html> without a lang REDACTED:9
AC3 · Page structure
- Viewport restricts zoom REDACTED:14
- Viewport restricts zoom src/content/capture/canvas-filter/index.html:14
- Viewport restricts zoom REDACTED:14
- Viewport restricts zoom REDACTED:14
- Viewport restricts zoom src/content/capture/canvas-video/index.html:14
- Viewport restricts zoom src/content/capture/video-contenthint/index.html:14
- Viewport restricts zoom REDACTED:14
- Viewport restricts zoom src/content/capture/video-video/index.html:14
- Viewport restricts zoom src/content/capture/worker-process/index.html:14
- Viewport restricts zoom REDACTED:14
- Viewport restricts zoom REDACTED:14
- Viewport restricts zoom REDACTED:14
- Viewport restricts zoom REDACTED:14
AC2 · Forms & labels
- <label> that labels no control src/content/devices/multi/index.html:46
- <label> that labels no control src/content/devices/multi/index.html:53
- <label> that labels no control src/content/devices/multi/index.html:68
- <label> that labels no control src/content/devices/multi/index.html:78
- <label> that labels no control src/content/extensions/multipleroutes/src/options.html:41
- <label> that labels no control REDACTED:102
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
AC2 · Forms & labels
- <textarea> without a programmatic label REDACTED:49
- <textarea> without a programmatic label REDACTED:54
- <textarea> without a programmatic label REDACTED:48
- <textarea> without a programmatic label REDACTED:53
AX8 · Test isolation
- Production project references a test project: src/content → test
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
Serious — 125 finding(s)
AC1 · Text alternatives
- <canvas> without a text alternative REDACTED:39
- <canvas> without a text alternative REDACTED:39
- <canvas> without a text alternative src/content/capture/canvas-video/index.html:39
- <canvas> without a text alternative src/content/extensions/svc/index.html:67
- <canvas> without a text alternative src/content/extensions/svc/index.html:71
- <canvas> without a text alternative src/content/getusermedia/canvas/index.html:40
- <canvas> without a text alternative src/content/getusermedia/filter/index.html:86
- <canvas> without a text alternative src/content/peerconnection/audio/index.html:68
- <canvas> without a text alternative src/content/peerconnection/audio/index.html:72
- <canvas> without a text alternative src/content/peerconnection/audio/index.html:76
- <canvas> without a text alternative src/content/peerconnection/bandwidth/index.html:61
- <canvas> without a text alternative src/content/peerconnection/bandwidth/index.html:65
- <canvas> without a text alternative src/content/peerconnection/per-frame-callback/index.html:53
- <canvas> without a text alternative src/content/peerconnection/per-frame-callback/index.html:57
- <canvas> without a text alternative src/content/peerconnection/per-frame-callback/index.html:62
- <canvas> without a text alternative src/content/peerconnection/per-frame-callback/index.html:66
- <canvas> without a text alternative REDACTED:42
AC3 · Page structure
- Page without a main landmark REDACTED:9
- Page without a main landmark src/content/capture/canvas-filter/index.html:9
- Page without a main landmark REDACTED:9
- Page without a main landmark REDACTED:9
- Page without a main landmark src/content/capture/canvas-video/index.html:9
- Page without a main landmark src/content/capture/video-contenthint/index.html:9
- Page without a main landmark REDACTED:9
- Page without a main landmark src/content/capture/video-video/index.html:9
- Page without a main landmark src/content/capture/worker-process/index.html:9
- Page without a main landmark REDACTED:9
- Page without a main landmark REDACTED:9
- Page without a main landmark REDACTED:9
- Page without a main landmark REDACTED:9
AC1 · Text alternatives
- <video> without a captions track src/content/capture/video-contenthint/index.html:42
- <video> without a captions track REDACTED:39
- <video> without a captions track src/content/capture/video-video/index.html:39
- <video> without a captions track src/content/devices/multi/index.html:62
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (25 lines × 2 locations) src/content/datachannel/basic/js/test.js:11
- Duplicated block (25 lines × 2 locations) src/content/peerconnection/bandwidth/js/main.js:166
- Duplicated block (25 lines × 2 locations) src/content/peerconnection/upgrade/js/main.js:150
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) src/content/capture/canvas-filter/js/main.js:11
- Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) src/content/peerconnection/change-codecs/js/main.js:177
- Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) src/content/peerconnection/change-codecs/js/test.js:43
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) src/content/getusermedia/canvas/js/main.js:21
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) src/content/peerconnection/multiple/js/main.js:58
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) src/content/peerconnection/munge-sdp/js/main.js:67
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~68 LoC) src/content/peerconnection/channel/js/test.js
- Dead file (~68 LoC) src/content/peerconnection/multiple/js/test.js
- Dead file (~68 LoC) src/content/peerconnection/negotiate-timing/js/test.js
AC6 · Visual & motion safety
- Low contrast colour pair in CSS (4.2:1) src/css/main.css:43
- Low contrast colour pair in CSS (4.2:1) src/content/getusermedia/record/css/main.css:16
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) src/content/peerconnection/pc1/js/main.js:142
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) src/content/peerconnection/states/js/main.js:137
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~62 LoC) src/content/peerconnection/munge-sdp/js/test.js
- Dead file (~62 LoC) src/content/peerconnection/trickle-ice/js/test.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~56 LoC) src/content/datachannel/datatransfer/js/test.js
- Dead file (~56 LoC) src/content/getusermedia/resolution/js/test.js
AC7 · A11y enforcement
- Accessibility enforcement below the top rung
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- peer.peer (cyclomatic 23) REDACTED:18
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main.initUI (cyclomatic 21) src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/js/main.js:135
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main.showRemoteStats (cyclomatic 18) src/content/peerconnection/constraints/js/main.js:202
D10 · Test Quality
- No assertions: establishes a connection test/interop/connection.test.js:38
D10 · Test Quality
- Test project verifies nothing: the repository root test/interop/connection.test.js:38
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main.showRemoteStats (cognitive 20) src/content/peerconnection/constraints/js/main.js:202
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- peer::onmessage (cognitive 19) REDACTED:84
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- loadProperties (cognitive 19) src/content/getusermedia/exposure/js/main.js:31
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main.start (cognitive 17) src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:105
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
D3 · God Classes
- FunctionTooLong: main.initUI src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/js/main.js:135
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
R1 · Type Safety
- Type Safety
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplication concentrated across 18 sibling directories (35 clone groups) REDACTED:12
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplication concentrated across 7 sibling directories (29 clone groups) src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:11
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block with local edits (191 matched lines × 2 locations) src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:11
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block with local edits (146 matched lines × 2 locations) src/content/insertable-streams/video-analyzer/js/main.js:55
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block with local edits (129 matched lines × 2 locations) REDACTED:12
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block with local edits (93 matched lines × 2 locations) src/content/datachannel/channel/js/main.js:25
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block with local edits (86 matched lines × 2 locations) src/content/capture/canvas-pc/js/main.js:43
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block with local edits (75 matched lines × 2 locations) src/content/peerconnection/bandwidth/js/main.js:60
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block with local edits (63 matched lines × 2 locations) src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/main.js:93
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block with local edits (46 matched lines × 2 locations) src/content/datachannel/basic/js/main.js:82
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (46 lines × 3 locations) src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:219
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (46 lines × 2 locations) src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:359
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block with local edits (40 matched lines × 2 locations) src/content/peerconnection/negotiate-timing/js/main.js:41
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (34 lines × 2 locations) src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/main.js:51
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (30 lines × 3 locations) src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/main.js:121
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (27 lines × 2 locations) src/content/getusermedia/exposure/js/main.js:79
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (25 lines × 3 locations) src/content/capture/video-pc/js/main.js:77
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (24 lines × 2 locations) src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/test.js:14
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) src/content/extensions/svc/js/main.js:180
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (20 lines × 7 locations) src/content/insertable-streams/endtoend-encryption/js/test.js:14
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block with local edits (20 matched lines × 2 locations) src/content/peerconnection/munge-sdp/js/main.js:116
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (20 lines × 2 locations) src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/main.js:11
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (19 lines × 3 locations) REDACTED:211
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (17 lines × 12 locations) src/content/datachannel/filetransfer/js/test.js:11
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block with local edits (16 matched lines × 2 locations) src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/js/video-mirror-helper.js:60
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 17 locations) src/content/datachannel/basic/js/test.js:8
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) src/content/datachannel/channel/js/test.js:14
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 11 locations) src/content/datachannel/filetransfer/js/test.js:14
R10 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block with local edits (14 matched lines × 2 locations) src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/js/camera-source.js:18
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Complex function onmessage (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 19) REDACTED:84
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Complex function start (cyclomatic 14, cognitive 13) src/content/devices/input-output/js/main.js:117
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Complex function buildDriver (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 16) test/webdriver.js:50
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Complex function animate (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 13) src/content/insertable-streams/video-processing/js/canvas-source.js:103
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Complex function showRemoteStats (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 11) src/content/peerconnection/constraints/js/main.js:202
R6 · Tooling
- No typecheck script
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~159 LoC) src/content/insertable-streams/endtoend-encryption/js/worker.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~88 LoC) src/content/datachannel/channel/js/test.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~78 LoC) src/content/insertable-streams/endtoend-encryption/js/test.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~77 LoC) src/content/peerconnection/states/js/test.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~75 LoC) src/content/insertable-streams/audio-processing/js/worker.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~73 LoC) src/content/peerconnection/dtmf/js/test.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~70 LoC) src/content/peerconnection/restart-ice/js/test.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~66 LoC) src/content/peerconnection/change-codecs/js/test.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~59 LoC) src/content/peerconnection/pc1/js/test.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~54 LoC) src/content/peerconnection/upgrade/js/test.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~51 LoC) src/content/datachannel/basic/js/test.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~49 LoC) src/content/devices/input-output/js/test.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~43 LoC) src/content/peerconnection/audio/js/test.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~42 LoC) src/content/datachannel/filetransfer/js/test.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~38 LoC) src/content/getusermedia/gum/js/test.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~35 LoC) src/content/insertable-streams/video-crop/js/worker.js
R7 · Dead Code
- Dead file (~20 LoC) src/content/capture/worker-process/js/worker.js
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- Third-party script without Subresource Integrity REDACTED:77
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene
- JavaScript dependencies are not locked
Minor — 35 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D19 · Documentation Quality
- Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md
- Documentation: no usage examples README.md
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README/code drift
- README/code drift
D16 · Bus Factor
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
D26 · Project Cohesion
- Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Orphaned files with no living knowledge
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D43 · Malicious Dependencies
- REDACTED
D8 · Code Coverage
- No tests — template/sample
P1 · CI/CD gates
- CI build step not evidenced
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No SAST
Minor — 1 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Dependency hygiene PARTLY measured — npm pinning read, dependency currency not (no committed lockfile, so no resolved version to grade)
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-b33235c194984bed913a57262a652244/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-b33235c194984bed913a57262a652244/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off . | 33 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-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 Confinement | runtime-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 Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json |