Public report — skills-manager, published 30 Sep 2026.
Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches,
dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase surveyMeasured under the Code Assurance Index · rubric rubric-2026.09.18 (frozen) · verify this surveyFiledcd_48294ef5a5f44403ae7afc4f9cdcfcb7
Filed 30 September 2026, 08:59 UTC
Public
Medium · 57,175 LoC · 2 projects · rebuild ~0.4 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (40%)
Findings by grade
67 critical381 serious46 minor36 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
30 September 2026, 08:41 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify,
approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The
standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said
here so the number is checked rather than believed.
Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸
454findings with an exact file:lineof 494 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
58/132dimensions across the health lenses57175 LoC · 2 projects — wide & deep
The system holds an adequate standing with a health score of 51%, but it carries significant operational risk that threatens delivery speed and reliability. While the architecture is robust and performance is excellent, the foundation is fragile in critical areas. This is a medium-sized asset with substantial value tied up in its logic, yet its weakest lens is production readiness, which sits at a concerning 40%. The cost to rebuild this core is modest, estimated at roughly €55,000, but the risk of failure in its current state is high.
The primary risk is operational fragility. With production readiness low, the system lacks the safety nets required for stable operation. There is no tested disaster recovery procedure, meaning a failure could lead to prolonged outages and data loss. This exposes the business to significant downtime costs and reputational damage. The lack of automated security checks in the build pipeline further compounds this, allowing potential vulnerabilities to slip into production unnoticed. This is not just a technical debt; it is a direct threat to business continuity.
A secondary issue is a velocity tax on every change. The code quality signals indicate that modifications in weaker areas are likely to cost 4–10% more effort than in clean code. This inefficiency compounds over time, slowing down feature delivery and increasing the cost of maintenance. While the architecture is strong, the code health and maturity levels suggest that new team members will struggle to pick up the work, leading to longer onboarding times and higher defect rates. This drag on productivity is a hidden cost that erodes the value of the system.
On the positive side, the system’s architecture is well-designed, and performance is optimal. The codebase is free of boilerplate, indicating a focused and efficient implementation. These strengths provide a solid foundation for improvement. However, the lack of measured data on domain modeling and event-driven patterns means the full picture is incomplete. We cannot fully assess the system’s scalability or flexibility in these areas.
The first action must be to add automated security scanning to the CI pipeline. This step is low-cost, high-impact, and pays for itself within months by preventing security regressions. It is the most effective way to reduce risk and improve confidence in the system. Once this is in place, the team can focus on improving production readiness and code quality, ensuring long-term stability and efficiency.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth 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.
D22 · Duplicate DTOs for GitHub connection state. Both types expose `url`, `login`, `repo_created`, and `repo_private`. `GithubBackupConnectResult` adds `remote_has_content` while `GithubConnectInfo` adds `repo_full_name`. This suggests two different layers (commands vs core API) are returning nearly identical data structures without sharing a common type.
D22 · Nearly identical result types for distinct operations. `UpdateSkillResult` and `ReimportSkillResult` share `skill`, `pending_removals`, and `removal_approval`. The only difference is the type name, implying the operations are handled separately despite having identical output contracts. This forces callers to handle two different types for effectively the same outcome.
D22 · Duplicate scanning result structures. Both `ScanResultDto` and `ScanPlan` contain `tools_scanned`, `skills_found`, and a group/collection of discovered items (`groups` vs `discovered`). `ScanResultDto` is a DTO (likely for API/IPC) while `ScanPlan` is an internal core type, but they represent the same semantic state of a scan operation.
D22 · Overlapping document types. `SkillDocumentDto` and `SourceSkillDocumentDto` both contain `skill_id`, `filename`, and `content`. `SourceSkillDocumentDto` adds `source_label` and `revision`. This suggests a hierarchy or distinction between 'current' and 'source' documents that is not clearly reflected in the naming or structure, potentially confusing consumers about which to use.
D22 · Inconsistent naming for audit record vs builder. `AuditEntry` is the final record, while `AuditDraft` is the builder. This is generally acceptable, but `AuditEntry` properties like `skill_id` are `PathBuf` while `AuditDraft` methods take `impl Into<String>`. The internal representation (`PathBuf`) vs input interface (`String`) mismatch is inconsistent with other parts of the API where `String` is often used for IDs.
R2 · Complex function Settings (cyclomatic 42, cognitive 39) src/views/Settings.tsx
AC2 · <input> without a programmatic label src/views/InstallSkills.tsx
A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.
0.7× (at 51% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape
Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)
This codebase represents roughly ~0.4 person-years of build effort (about ~€55,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 40% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.4 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 40%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
The top fix pays for itself · High · Economics
The top-ranked fix costs roughly 3–10 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 15.5–92.8 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~138,481 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 1–8 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 4–10% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.
Evidence: D15 churn: 34,146 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~138,481/year · D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 6.2/10 ⇒ a 4–10% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Medium effort ⇒ about 3–10 engineer-day(s)
→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 8 months.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 6.2/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 4–10% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Evidence: D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 6.2/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured
→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
108 modules, 73 dependencies. Every dependency points down the layering — no cycles.
Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 68 more are not drawn.
Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
skills_manager.core.skill_store uses skills_manager.core.audit_log. Changing skills_manager.core.audit_log can break skills_manager.core.skill_store, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
11→7 src.components.PresetBar depends on src.lib.presetStatus✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in src.components.PresetBar → type in src.lib.presetStatus) reference.
src.components.SkillPickerRow uses src.lib.skillPickerStatus. Changing src.lib.skillPickerStatus can break src.components.SkillPickerRow, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
12→9 src.components.SkillPickerRow depends on src.lib.tauri✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in src.components.SkillPickerRow → type in src.lib.tauri) reference.
skills_manager.commands.presets uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.commands.presets, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
17→5 skills_manager.commands.projects depends on skills_manager.core.project_scanner✕
Type pairs
2 distinct (type in skills_manager.commands.projects → type in skills_manager.core.project_scanner) references.
skills_manager.commands.projects uses skills_manager.core.project_scanner. Changing skills_manager.core.project_scanner can break skills_manager.commands.projects, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
17→10 skills_manager.commands.projects depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
3 distinct (type in skills_manager.commands.projects → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) references.
skills_manager.commands.projects uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.commands.projects, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
18→3 skills_manager.commands.skills depends on skills_manager.core.install_cancel✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.commands.skills → type in skills_manager.core.install_cancel) reference.
skills_manager.commands.skills uses skills_manager.core.install_cancel. Changing skills_manager.core.install_cancel can break skills_manager.commands.skills, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
18→4 skills_manager.commands.skills depends on skills_manager.core.installer✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.commands.skills → type in skills_manager.core.installer) reference.
skills_manager.commands.skills uses skills_manager.core.installer. Changing skills_manager.core.installer can break skills_manager.commands.skills, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
18→10 skills_manager.commands.skills depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
2 distinct (type in skills_manager.commands.skills → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) references.
skills_manager.commands.skills uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.commands.skills, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
19→10 skills_manager.commands.sync depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.commands.sync → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) reference.
skills_manager.commands.sync uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.commands.sync, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
20→10 skills_manager.core.app_state depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.app_state → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) reference.
skills_manager.core.app_state uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.core.app_state, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
21→10 skills_manager.core.auto_backup depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.auto_backup → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) reference.
skills_manager.core.auto_backup uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.core.auto_backup, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
22→10 skills_manager.core.file_watcher depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.file_watcher → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) reference.
skills_manager.core.file_watcher uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.core.file_watcher, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
23→10 skills_manager.core.merge depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.merge → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) reference.
skills_manager.core.merge uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.core.merge, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
24→10 skills_manager.core.scanner depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
2 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.scanner → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) references.
skills_manager.core.scanner uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.core.scanner, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
25→10 skills_manager.core.sync_metadata depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
3 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.sync_metadata → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) references.
skills_manager.core.sync_metadata uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.core.sync_metadata, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
26→10 skills_manager.core.tool_adapters depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.tool_adapters → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) reference.
skills_manager.core.tool_adapters uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.core.tool_adapters, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
skills_manager.commands.agent_workspace uses skills_manager.core.project_scanner. Changing skills_manager.core.project_scanner can break skills_manager.commands.agent_workspace, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
28→10 skills_manager.commands.agent_workspace depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
3 distinct (type in skills_manager.commands.agent_workspace → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) references.
skills_manager.commands.agent_workspace uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.commands.agent_workspace, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
28→26 skills_manager.commands.agent_workspace depends on skills_manager.core.tool_adapters✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.commands.agent_workspace → type in skills_manager.core.tool_adapters) reference.
skills_manager.commands.agent_workspace uses skills_manager.core.tool_adapters. Changing skills_manager.core.tool_adapters can break skills_manager.commands.agent_workspace, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
29→10 skills_manager.commands.scan depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.commands.scan → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) reference.
skills_manager.commands.scan uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.commands.scan, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
29→24 skills_manager.commands.scan depends on skills_manager.core.scanner✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.commands.scan → type in skills_manager.core.scanner) reference.
skills_manager.commands.scan uses skills_manager.core.scanner. Changing skills_manager.core.scanner can break skills_manager.commands.scan, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
30→10 skills_manager.commands.tools depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.commands.tools → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) reference.
skills_manager.commands.tools uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.commands.tools, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
30→26 skills_manager.commands.tools depends on skills_manager.core.tool_adapters✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.commands.tools → type in skills_manager.core.tool_adapters) reference.
skills_manager.commands.tools uses skills_manager.core.tool_adapters. Changing skills_manager.core.tool_adapters can break skills_manager.commands.tools, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
31→10 skills_manager.core.merge.resolve depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.merge.resolve → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) reference.
skills_manager.core.merge.resolve uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.core.merge.resolve, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
31→25 skills_manager.core.merge.resolve depends on skills_manager.core.sync_metadata✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.merge.resolve → type in skills_manager.core.sync_metadata) reference.
skills_manager.core.merge.resolve uses skills_manager.core.sync_metadata. Changing skills_manager.core.sync_metadata can break skills_manager.core.merge.resolve, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
32→25 skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot depends on skills_manager.core.sync_metadata✕
Type pairs
2 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot → type in skills_manager.core.sync_metadata) references.
skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot uses skills_manager.core.sync_metadata. Changing skills_manager.core.sync_metadata can break skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
33→10 skills_manager.core.scenario_service depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.scenario_service → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) reference.
skills_manager.core.scenario_service uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.core.scenario_service, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
33→16 skills_manager.core.scenario_service depends on skills_manager.commands.presets✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.scenario_service → type in skills_manager.commands.presets) reference.
skills_manager.core.scenario_service uses skills_manager.commands.presets. Changing skills_manager.commands.presets can break skills_manager.core.scenario_service, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
33→26 skills_manager.core.scenario_service depends on skills_manager.core.tool_adapters✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.scenario_service → type in skills_manager.core.tool_adapters) reference.
skills_manager.core.scenario_service uses skills_manager.core.tool_adapters. Changing skills_manager.core.tool_adapters can break skills_manager.core.scenario_service, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
34→10 skills_manager.core.tool_service depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.tool_service → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) reference.
skills_manager.core.tool_service uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.core.tool_service, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
34→26 skills_manager.core.tool_service depends on skills_manager.core.tool_adapters✕
Type pairs
2 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.tool_service → type in skills_manager.core.tool_adapters) references.
skills_manager.core.tool_service uses skills_manager.core.tool_adapters. Changing skills_manager.core.tool_adapters can break skills_manager.core.tool_service, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
35→10 skills_manager depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) reference.
skills_manager.bin.skills-manager-cli uses skills_manager.core.error. Changing skills_manager.core.error can break skills_manager.bin.skills-manager-cli, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
36→10 skills_manager.bin.skills-manager-cli depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
2 distinct (type in skills_manager.bin.skills-manager-cli → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) references.
skills_manager.bin.skills-manager-cli uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.bin.skills-manager-cli, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
36→33 skills_manager.bin.skills-manager-cli depends on skills_manager.core.scenario_service✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.bin.skills-manager-cli → type in skills_manager.core.scenario_service) reference.
skills_manager.bin.skills-manager-cli uses skills_manager.core.scenario_service. Changing skills_manager.core.scenario_service can break skills_manager.bin.skills-manager-cli, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
37→25 skills_manager.core.merge.decision depends on skills_manager.core.sync_metadata✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.merge.decision → type in skills_manager.core.sync_metadata) reference.
skills_manager.core.merge.decision uses skills_manager.core.sync_metadata. Changing skills_manager.core.sync_metadata can break skills_manager.core.merge.decision, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
37→32 skills_manager.core.merge.decision depends on skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot✕
Type pairs
3 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.merge.decision → type in skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot) references.
skills_manager.core.merge.decision uses skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot. Changing skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot can break skills_manager.core.merge.decision, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
38→32 skills_manager.core.merge.pending depends on skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.merge.pending → type in skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot) reference.
skills_manager.core.merge.pending uses skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot. Changing skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot can break skills_manager.core.merge.pending, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
39→10 skills_manager.core.merge.apply depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.merge.apply → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) reference.
skills_manager.core.merge.apply uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.core.merge.apply, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
39→32 skills_manager.core.merge.apply depends on skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot✕
Type pairs
2 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.merge.apply → type in skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot) references.
skills_manager.core.merge.apply uses skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot. Changing skills_manager.core.merge.snapshot can break skills_manager.core.merge.apply, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
39→37 skills_manager.core.merge.apply depends on skills_manager.core.merge.decision✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.core.merge.apply → type in skills_manager.core.merge.decision) reference.
skills_manager.core.merge.apply uses skills_manager.core.merge.decision. Changing skills_manager.core.merge.decision can break skills_manager.core.merge.apply, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
40→2 skills_manager.commands.git_backup depends on skills_manager.core.error✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.commands.git_backup → type in skills_manager.core.error) reference.
skills_manager.commands.git_backup uses skills_manager.core.error. Changing skills_manager.core.error can break skills_manager.commands.git_backup, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
40→10 skills_manager.commands.git_backup depends on skills_manager.core.skill_store✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.commands.git_backup → type in skills_manager.core.skill_store) reference.
skills_manager.commands.git_backup uses skills_manager.core.skill_store. Changing skills_manager.core.skill_store can break skills_manager.commands.git_backup, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
40→39 skills_manager.commands.git_backup depends on skills_manager.core.merge.apply✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in skills_manager.commands.git_backup → type in skills_manager.core.merge.apply) reference.
skills_manager.commands.git_backup uses skills_manager.core.merge.apply. Changing skills_manager.core.merge.apply can break skills_manager.commands.git_backup, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
At a glance — Code Health · 62% · Adequate · gated by D1, D2, R3 ·
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components
40
High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection
5
High / Critical
Roadmap
First, integrate automated security scanning into the CI pipeline to block regressions and update outdated dependencies to reduce vulnerability exposure. Next, establish a tested disaster recovery procedure with documented recovery objectives to ensure business continuity. Finally, expand test coverage to include currently unreachable production modules and document key architectural decisions to improve long-term maintainability and clarity.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this
survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.
Critical — 67
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 — 381
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 — 46
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 36
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. 53 of 58 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 58 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 454 of 494 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.rs) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.rs) and this repository declares a Cargo test suite (src-tauri, 47 test files), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D16 Bus Factor — 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. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (28 contributor(s) across 601 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 91% of the history; the other 27 hold 0.3% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
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. 35 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 75.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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. 66 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 106.
S1 Web-Security Posture — 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 web-security 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 web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
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.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
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.
AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D21, D22, D26, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
45 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was MySkills.MySkills at 281. A further 1 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_skills at 19 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.
+ 22 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 19 skills_manager finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with skills-manager-cli.rs (4), git_fetcher.rs (2), scenario_service.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 MySkills.MySkills (cyclomatic 281) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with MySkills.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ProjectDetail.ProjectDetail (cyclomatic 226) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ProjectDetail.tsx. — 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.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 20 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 59 skills_manager finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with git_fetcher.rs (5), skills-manager-cli.rs (5), git_backup.rs (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (59 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 MySkills.MySkills (cognitive 331) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with MySkills.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ProjectDetail.ProjectDetail (cognitive 273) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ProjectDetail.tsx. — 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.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 34 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with skills-manager-cli.rs (3), ProjectDetail.tsx (2), WorkspaceView.tsx (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (34 warning-level).
Resolve the 21 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with git_backup.rs (2), skills-manager-cli.rs, skills.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (21 warning-level).
Resolve the 8 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Settings.tsx, MySkills.tsx, InstallSkills.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
52 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 2 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. Measured on part of this repository only: .tsx (29% of production source) was not exposed to THIS dimension's token comparison and is not in this count; duplication there is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream.
+ 17 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 8 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with skill_store.rs (3), skills.rs (2), skills-manager-cli.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 7 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with git_fetcher.rs (3), skills.rs (2), skills-manager-cli.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with projects.rs (2), skill_store.rs (2), installer.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
2 production modules (Cargo+npm), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 0 module(s) off the main sequence.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
545 test methods: 545 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 545 `#[test]` function(s) across 47 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 0 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.
What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.
Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.
21 outdated, 0 yanked direct Cargo dependencies. Only DIRECT edges are graded: a transitive crate cannot be moved past what its parent's requirement admits, so reporting one would be advice its owner cannot take. A newer release is reported only where this repository's OWN requirement already admits it, so the remedy is `cargo update` and never a manifest edit — which means a release outside the declared range is deliberately NOT charged, because a written-down constraint is a decision rather than a defect. Note that a bare requirement is a CARET, and for a 0.x crate its ceiling is the minor. Whether any crate is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — crates.io publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED there.
Outdated: anyhow · ×21
What to do
Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
Top hotspots: src/views/MySkills.tsx (17×281=4777); src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx (13×226=2938); src/views/Backup.tsx (15×176=2640) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs (10 of 18 changes were fixes); src-tauri/src/core/sync_engine.rs (6 of 6 changes were fixes); src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs (5 of 6 changes were fixes)
Resolve the 20 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with MySkills.tsx, ProjectDetail.tsx, Backup.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (20 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with skills.rs, sync_engine.rs, projects.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
0 deducted task-comment markers across 57175 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
The root README is clear and complete: it states the project name (Skills Manager), its purpose (one app to manage AI agent skills across all coding tools), a live demo badge link, an English and Chinese README link, a video intro, a Bilibili video link, a Trendshift repository badge, a marketplace install demo, and a full outline of Install Skills / Global Workspace / Agent Workspace / Project Workspace / Ba sections. The architecture/design docs skill-format-detection-spec.md records the external conventions verified (skills.sh, vercel-labs/skills, vercel-labs/agent-skills) and recommends a canonical detection policy with practical compatibility rules; it is clipped mid-sentence but its outline exists, so no section is flagged as missing. The visible content is strong for an overview plus usage.
What to do
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The root README is clear and complete: it states the project name (Skills Manager), its purpose (one app to manage AI agent skills across all coding tools), a live demo badge link, an English and Chinese README link, a video intro, a Bilibili video link, a Trendshift repository badge, a marketplace install demo, and a full outline of Install Skills / Global Workspace / Agent Workspace / Project Workspace / Ba sections. The architecture/design docs skill-format-detection-spec.md records the external conventions verified (skills.sh, vercel-labs/skills, vercel-labs/agent-skills) and recommends a canonical detection policy with practical compatibility rules; it is clipped mid-sentence but its outline exists, so no section is flagged as missing. The visible content is strong for an overview plus usage.
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D22 · Internal API ConsistencyAdequate◐ Sampled · advisory
What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.
5 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 156 exposed types.
Duplicate DTOs for GitHub connection state. Both types expose `url`, `login`, `repo_created`, and `repo_private`. `GithubBackupConnectResult` adds `remote_has_content` while `GithubConnectInfo` adds `repo_full_name`. This suggests two different layers (commands vs core API) are returning nearly identical data structures without sharing a common type.
Nearly identical result types for distinct operations. `UpdateSkillResult` and `ReimportSkillResult` share `skill`, `pending_removals`, and `removal_approval`. The only difference is the type name, implying the operations are handled separately despite having identical output contracts. This forces callers to handle two different types for effectively the same outcome.
Duplicate scanning result structures. Both `ScanResultDto` and `ScanPlan` contain `tools_scanned`, `skills_found`, and a group/collection of discovered items (`groups` vs `discovered`). `ScanResultDto` is a DTO (likely for API/IPC) while `ScanPlan` is an internal core type, but they represent the same semantic state of a scan operation.
Overlapping document types. `SkillDocumentDto` and `SourceSkillDocumentDto` both contain `skill_id`, `filename`, and `content`. `SourceSkillDocumentDto` adds `source_label` and `revision`. This suggests a hierarchy or distinction between 'current' and 'source' documents that is not clearly reflected in the naming or structure, potentially confusing consumers about which to use.
Inconsistent naming for audit record vs builder. `AuditEntry` is the final record, while `AuditDraft` is the builder. This is generally acceptable, but `AuditEntry` properties like `skill_id` are `PathBuf` while `AuditDraft` methods take `impl Into<String>`. The internal representation (`PathBuf`) vs input interface (`String`) mismatch is inconsistent with other parts of the API where `String` is often used for IDs.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Duplicate DTOs for GitHub connection state. Both types expose `url`,… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Nearly identical result types for distinct operations.… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicate scanning result structures. Both `ScanResultDto` and… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
1 of 1 build units (Cargo) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
What to do
Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
5 finding(s): 0 critical, 5 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 2 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 1 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
What to do
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 2 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 (2 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.
Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.
+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 12 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (10), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 issue-level).
Resolve the 9 Medium vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (8), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 7 Medium advisory (unmaintained) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 95 of the 123 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
Resolve the 1 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with Layout.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 3 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with project_scanner.rs (2), ProjectDetail.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.
Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.
What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.
Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 0 platform declaration(s) and 22 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.
AC1 · Text alternatives10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Accessibility — Whether non-text content carries a text alternative — img/area/input[type=image] have alt, a meaningful svg has a title or aria-label, video has a captions track, and object/embed/canvas have a name or fallback content. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: every img/area/input[type=image] checked for alt, svg[role=img] for a title/aria-label, video for a captions <track>. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.
Coverage: Population: image/media elements — img, area, input[type=image], svg, video, object, embed, canvas — across the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and dynamic-attribute elements are skipped. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is NOT read by any producer, so it contributes no element to this population; where such a frontend is present the card discloses it as an analyzer gap rather than scoring around it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC2 · Forms & labels4.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.
Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one). (×15) — src/components/AddProjectDialog.tsx:129, src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:581, src/components/BatchSyncAgentDialog.tsx:92, …
This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label. (×13) — src/components/AddProjectDialog.tsx:178, src/components/AddProjectDialog.tsx:278, src/components/AddProjectDialog.tsx:286, …
This <label> has no htmlFor 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 htmlFor="<the control's id>", move the control inside the label, or point the control's aria-labelledby at this label's id. (×9) — src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx:126, src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx:164, src/components/CreatePresetDialog.tsx:51, …
This <div> carries a click handler, which makes it a control, but it has no text, aria-label or labelled child (the icon-only case), so assistive tech has no name to announce for it. Note that switching it to <button type="button"> — the right fix for its keyboard operability — does not give it a name either: an icon-only button still needs one. Add visible text or an aria-label. — src/components/HelpDialog.tsx:15
This control has no associated label. Add a <label htmlFor> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. (×2) — src/components/TagRenameDialog.tsx:61, src/views/Backup.tsx:804
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.
Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.
Coverage: Population: the PARSED MARKUP documents (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx). The page-level checks — lang, title, single main landmark — fire ONCE PER FULL DOCUMENT (an <html> root) and never on a partial or component fragment, so a repo of fragments is assessed only on the per-element checks (heading order, table headers, iframe titles, meta-refresh, zoom). Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. This document's body is only the mount point <div id="root">, so there is no content here to wrap — render the <main> from the component mounted into it. — index.html:2
Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one. (×6) — src/views/Dashboard.tsx:89, src/views/Dashboard.tsx:146, src/views/InstallSkills.tsx:1006, …
What to do
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no element the repo's own CSS styles `cursor: pointer` without giving it any of the three, no unfocusable element whose only binding is a mouse enter/leave pair or a double-click, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor, no placeholder-href (#/javascript) link acting as a button. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.
Coverage: Population: elements that pose a keyboard-semantics question, in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) — a non-natively-interactive element carrying a click handler, a double-click or hover enter/leave binding, a pointer-only gesture on a tabindex="0" element, or `cursor: pointer` from the repo's own CSS; an href-less or placeholder-href (#, javascript:) anchor; and any element with a positive tabindex. Natively interactive elements used correctly (<button>, <a href>, form controls) are NOT in the population — there is nothing to judge — so a page of nothing but correct controls gives AC4 nothing to measure. Keyboard reachability is judged from the markup, never from a rendered page. ★ An interactive element declared in a tagged-template (html`…`) or hyperscript frontend is NOT in this population — no producer reads either — so an empty population is reported as an analyzer gap, never as "this repository has no interactive elements".
A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler. (×6) — src/components/HelpDialog.tsx:15, src/components/SkillPickerRow.tsx:48, src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1218, …
A click handler on a plain element with no role and no tabindex: even where another element's key handler can reach it, assistive tech can neither focus it nor announce what it is. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0}. (×3) — src/views/MySkills.tsx:1413, src/views/MySkills.tsx:1674, src/views/MySkills.tsx:1935
What to do
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.
Coverage: Population: elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) that carry a role or an aria-* attribute; roles and token values are checked against the ARIA enums exhaustively within that set. An expression-valued (dynamic) role or aria-* value is skipped rather than guessed, and markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.
Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.
Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.
Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.
No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y) 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 47 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 eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y, then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.
Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.
Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
What to do
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.
Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 29791 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: cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P5 · DR & Backup4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.
Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.
What to do
Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).
Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.
Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R1 · Type Safety9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.
Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.
What to do
Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
React / JS · Code Health — Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386): a block is reported only where its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or were renamed as they were pasted but kept most of their constants, and where the copies carry enough code to stand on their own or the copied extent reaches 30 lines — so a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are both found and deliberately not reported, and a clean R10 is not a claim that nothing was copied.
Method: Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Masking finds the candidates; a block is reported when its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or when a renamed copy still agrees on most of its constants, AND the copies carry enough code to stand on their own — or when the copied extent reaches 30 lines. So a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are deliberately not counted. Deterministic.
19 duplicated blocks under src/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories components, context, hooks, views — 13 of them are reported below, and 6 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 19 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 19 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 19 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/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:234
src/components/ProjectAgentDots.tsx:8 · src/components/SyncDots.tsx:8 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 797 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/components/ProjectAgentDots.tsx:8
src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1285 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1427 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 404 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/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1285
src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1012 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:980 — 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/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1012
src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1695 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:1193 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1695
src/views/MySkills.tsx:1469 · src/views/MySkills.tsx:1809 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/views/MySkills.tsx:1469
src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:949 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:934 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:949
src/components/CreatePresetDialog.tsx:69 · src/components/RenamePresetDialog.tsx:72 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — src/components/CreatePresetDialog.tsx:69
src/views/MySkills.tsx:1191 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:954 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:939 — the 3 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. 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/views/MySkills.tsx:1191
src/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:234 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1654 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 156 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/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:234
src/components/CreatePresetDialog.tsx:31 · src/components/RenamePresetDialog.tsx:44 — 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/components/CreatePresetDialog.tsx:31
src/views/MySkills.tsx:683 · src/views/MySkills.tsx:726 — 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/views/MySkills.tsx:683
src/views/MySkills.tsx:1121 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:918 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — src/views/MySkills.tsx:1121
src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:65 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:212 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:65
src/views/MySkills.tsx:1429 · src/views/MySkills.tsx:1688 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/views/MySkills.tsx:1429
src/components/Sidebar.tsx:421 · src/components/Sidebar.tsx:579 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/components/Sidebar.tsx:421
src/components/Sidebar.tsx:481 · src/components/Sidebar.tsx:648 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/components/Sidebar.tsx:481
src/components/Sidebar.tsx:513 · src/components/Sidebar.tsx:677 — 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/components/Sidebar.tsx:513
src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1230 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1381 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1230
src/components/PresetBar.tsx:61 · src/components/PresetBar.tsx:94 — 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/components/PresetBar.tsx:61
src/views/Settings.tsx:1569 · src/views/Settings.tsx:1597 — 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/views/Settings.tsx:1569
src/components/AddProjectDialog.tsx:109 · src/components/TagRenameDialog.tsx:29 — 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/components/AddProjectDialog.tsx:109
src/views/Settings.tsx:960 · src/views/Settings.tsx:1026 — 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/views/Settings.tsx:960
src/views/Settings.tsx:1677 · src/views/Settings.tsx:1699 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/views/Settings.tsx:1677
src/views/MySkills.tsx:599 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:845 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — src/views/MySkills.tsx:599
src/views/MySkills.tsx:1251 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1042 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:1010 — 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/views/MySkills.tsx:1251
src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1263 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1405 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1263
src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:113 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:182 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:113
src/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:125 · src/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:151 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:125
src/views/Settings.tsx:940 · src/views/Settings.tsx:998 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/views/Settings.tsx:940
src/views/Settings.tsx:1527 · src/views/Settings.tsx:1641 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/views/Settings.tsx:1527
src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:213 · src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:254 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 97 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/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:213
src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:914 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:912 — 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/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:914
src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:628 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:647 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:628
src/components/Sidebar.tsx:112 · src/components/Sidebar.tsx:131 — 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/components/Sidebar.tsx:112
src/components/Sidebar.tsx:344 · src/components/Sidebar.tsx:490 · src/components/Sidebar.tsx:657 — all 3 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/components/Sidebar.tsx:344
src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:433 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:420 — 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/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:433
src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:692 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:816 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:692
src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:548 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:572 — 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/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:548
src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx:231 · src/components/GitSetupDialog.tsx:88 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx:231
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.
React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.
Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.
Backup has cyclomatic complexity 55 and cognitive complexity 51; 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/views/Backup.tsx:86
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 51 and cognitive complexity 57; 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/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1199
WorkspaceView has cyclomatic complexity 50 and cognitive complexity 48; 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/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:242
InstallSkills has cyclomatic complexity 44 and cognitive complexity 41; 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/views/InstallSkills.tsx:45
Settings has cyclomatic complexity 42 and cognitive complexity 39; 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/views/Settings.tsx:158
SkillDetailPanelContent has cyclomatic complexity 39 and cognitive complexity 32; 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/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:78
ProjectDetail has cyclomatic complexity 36 and cognitive complexity 32; 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/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:127
MySkills has cyclomatic complexity 35 and cognitive complexity 31; 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/views/MySkills.tsx:136
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 30 and cognitive complexity 27; 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/views/MySkills.tsx:1412
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 26 and cognitive complexity 23; 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/views/MySkills.tsx:1673
renderAgentCard has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 20; 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/views/Settings.tsx:837
AddSkillsSheetBody has cyclomatic complexity 23 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 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/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:71
handleBackupNow has cyclomatic complexity 22 and cognitive complexity 27; 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/views/Backup.tsx:434
SkillPickerRow has cyclomatic complexity 22 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 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/components/SkillPickerRow.tsx:19
mapGitErrorMessage has cyclomatic complexity 22 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 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/lib/gitErrors.ts:8
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 21 and cognitive complexity 21; 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/views/Backup.tsx:290
handleInstall has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 31; 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/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:380
WorkspaceSkillCard has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 15; 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/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:54
handleReportIssue has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 23; 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/views/Settings.tsx:559
renderLocalSkillActions has cyclomatic complexity 16 and cognitive complexity 14; 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/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:722
What to do
Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R3 · Large Files3.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.
Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.
10 file(s) over 400 lines (counted as significant lines — blank lines excluded — over production source only, tests excluded), largest first: src/views/MySkills.tsx (1884), src/views/Settings.tsx (1806), src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx (1663), src/views/InstallSkills.tsx (1535), src/views/Backup.tsx (1313), src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx (1239) (+4 more).
What to do
Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R4 · Test Coverage0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.
Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.
0% of 63 production file(s) reachable from 0 test file(s) via the import graph — 'production' here is the RESIDUE: every source file left once tests, tooling, generated output, config, declarations and declaration-only modules, fixture corpora, type fixtures, behaviour-free data modules, re-export barrels, registration/constant data modules and service workers are set aside, so the percentage is taken over a smaller denominator than the workspace's file count
What to do
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
React / JS · Readiness — How outdated the npm dependencies are (a maturity signal). JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities).
Method: npm dependency staleness from manifest/registry metadata (a maturity signal; JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30, which answers dependency vulnerabilities for every ecosystem). Deterministic.
What to do
Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R6 · Tooling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each package.json script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.
Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R7 · Dead Code9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).
Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.
Unreachable from the 3 application, 5 tooling and 0 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on `npm run build` — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
no import path from any entry point (3 application, 5 tooling, 0 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 — src/components/InstallToast.tsx
Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal. (×8) — src/lib/tauri.ts:196, src/lib/tauri.ts:240, src/lib/tauri.ts:646, …
What to do
Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.
Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.
Declared in the root package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
What to do
Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.
Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
Statically assessed 15 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (27%; ≈30% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 40 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Unscored — 4 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 3 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 3 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
Not included — 67 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's JavaScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's; Rust with no dependency-injection crate has no container to hand one lifetime's instance to another — every value is owned by the code that builds it, and the borrow checker rejects a longer-lived value keeping a borrow of a shorter-lived one; this repository's TypeScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No function in this Python code is served by a threaded web framework (a Flask, Bottle or FastAPI route, a Django or Pyramid view), so no module is shared between request threads. Rust's compiler refuses unsynchronised shared mutation — a value shared across threads must be Sync — so the race this check looks for cannot be written. TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the dev server did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time — no runtime evidence This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~959 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .rs suite was found but not re-run
D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's 727 shipped crate(s) were read from its REDACTED, but crates.io could not be asked for the licence of 27 of them (HTTP 429 Unknown Error), and a licence verdict over part of a dependency graph is not a licence verdict. Nothing is asserted about this repository's licensing in either direction.
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
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.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Rust source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `#[bench]`, criterion's `bench_function`/`bench_with_input`, `#[divan::bench]` or `#[library_benchmark]` in any `.rs` file, or criterion, divan, iai or a `[[bench]]` target in a Cargo.toml, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Rust spells out every heap allocation and makes borrowed slices (&[T], &str) its ordinary parameter types, so the allocation-aware style this card rewards elsewhere is the language's baseline rather than a rung to climb. 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.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
Critical — 67 finding(s)
AC2 · Forms & labels· <button> with no accessible text · ×15
<button> with no accessible text src/components/AddProjectDialog.tsx:129— A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).
<button> with no accessible text src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:581— A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).
<button> with no accessible text src/components/BatchSyncAgentDialog.tsx:92— A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).
<button> with no accessible text src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx:110— A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).
<button> with no accessible text src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx:174— A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).
<button> with no accessible text src/components/CloseActionDialog.tsx:41— A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).
<button> with no accessible text src/components/ConfirmDialog.tsx:64— A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).
<button> with no accessible text src/components/CreatePresetDialog.tsx:44— A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).
<button> with no accessible text src/components/DetailSheet.tsx:37— A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).
<button> with no accessible text src/components/GitRecoveryDialog.tsx:57— A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).
<button> with no accessible text src/components/GitSetupDialog.tsx:47— A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).
<button> with no accessible text src/components/HelpDialog.tsx:26— A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).
<button> with no accessible text src/components/RenamePresetDialog.tsx:57— A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).
<button> with no accessible text src/components/TagRenameDialog.tsx:48— A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).
<button> with no accessible text src/views/InstallSkills.tsx:826— A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).
AC2 · Forms & labels· <input> without a programmatic label · ×15
<input> without a programmatic label src/components/AddProjectDialog.tsx:178— This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label src/components/AddProjectDialog.tsx:278— This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label src/components/AddProjectDialog.tsx:286— This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:593— This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx:183— This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label src/components/CommandPalette.tsx:317— This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label src/components/CreatePresetDialog.tsx:52— This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label src/components/CreatePresetDialog.tsx:64— This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label src/components/FirstRunRestoreDialog.tsx:89— This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label src/components/RenamePresetDialog.tsx:65— This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label src/components/TagRenameDialog.tsx:61— This control has no associated label. Add a <label htmlFor> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<input> without a programmatic label src/views/Backup.tsx:804— This control has no associated label. Add a <label htmlFor> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<input> without a programmatic label src/views/Backup.tsx:1050— This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label src/views/Backup.tsx:1109— This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label src/views/InstallSkills.tsx:783— This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
AC2 · Forms & labels· <label> that labels no control · ×9
<label> that labels no control src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx:126— This <label> has no htmlFor 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 htmlFor="<the control's id>", move the control inside the label, or point the control's aria-labelledby at this label's id.
<label> that labels no control src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx:164— This <label> has no htmlFor 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 htmlFor="<the control's id>", move the control inside the label, or point the control's aria-labelledby at this label's id.
<label> that labels no control src/components/CreatePresetDialog.tsx:51— This <label> has no htmlFor 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 htmlFor="<the control's id>", move the control inside the label, or point the control's aria-labelledby at this label's id.
<label> that labels no control src/components/CreatePresetDialog.tsx:63— This <label> has no htmlFor 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 htmlFor="<the control's id>", move the control inside the label, or point the control's aria-labelledby at this label's id.
<label> that labels no control src/components/CreatePresetDialog.tsx:73— This <label> has no htmlFor 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 htmlFor="<the control's id>", move the control inside the label, or point the control's aria-labelledby at this label's id.
<label> that labels no control src/components/FirstRunRestoreDialog.tsx:88— This <label> has no htmlFor 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 htmlFor="<the control's id>", move the control inside the label, or point the control's aria-labelledby at this label's id.
<label> that labels no control src/components/RenamePresetDialog.tsx:64— This <label> has no htmlFor 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 htmlFor="<the control's id>", move the control inside the label, or point the control's aria-labelledby at this label's id.
<label> that labels no control src/components/RenamePresetDialog.tsx:76— This <label> has no htmlFor 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 htmlFor="<the control's id>", move the control inside the label, or point the control's aria-labelledby at this label's id.
<label> that labels no control src/components/TagRenameDialog.tsx:58— This <label> has no htmlFor 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 htmlFor="<the control's id>", move the control inside the label, or point the control's aria-labelledby at this label's id.
AC4 · Keyboard semantics· Click handler on a non-interactive <div> · ×9
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> src/components/HelpDialog.tsx:15— A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> src/components/SkillPickerRow.tsx:48— A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> src/views/MySkills.tsx:1413— A click handler on a plain element with no role and no tabindex: even where another element's key handler can reach it, assistive tech can neither focus it nor announce what it is. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0}.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> src/views/MySkills.tsx:1674— A click handler on a plain element with no role and no tabindex: even where another element's key handler can reach it, assistive tech can neither focus it nor announce what it is. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0}.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> src/views/MySkills.tsx:1935— A click handler on a plain element with no role and no tabindex: even where another element's key handler can reach it, assistive tech can neither focus it nor announce what it is. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0}.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1218— A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1371— A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:98— A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:158— A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.
AC2 · Forms & labels· Custom control with no accessible name on <div> · ×1
Custom control with no accessible name on <div> src/components/HelpDialog.tsx:15— This <div> carries a click handler, which makes it a control, but it has no text, aria-label or labelled child (the icon-only case), so assistive tech has no name to announce for it. Note that switching it to <button type="button"> — the right fix for its keyboard operability — does not give it a name either: an icon-only button still needs one. Add visible text or an aria-label.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: Layout.tsx ↔ MySkills.tsx src/components/Layout.tsx— `src/components/Layout.tsx` (context components) and `src/views/MySkills.tsx` (context views) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `8b204c29` feat: add command palette and per-agent sync indicators; `e9a71f48` refactor: extract SkillMarkdown component and improve tag UX; `eda7bbd1` refactor: introduce shared app-page utility classes and standardize U… — run `git show` on any of them.
skills_manager::core::merge::validate::validate_tree (cognitive 59) src-tauri/src/core/merge/validate.rs:63— skills_manager::core::merge::validate::validate_tree has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (43 pts), loops 7 (13 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 31). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::core::git_fetcher::clone_repo_full (cognitive 55) src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:945— skills_manager::core::git_fetcher::clone_repo_full has cognitive complexity 55 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (41 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 28). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::core::tool_service::migrate_legacy_tool_keys (cognitive 52) src-tauri/src/core/tool_service.rs:292— skills_manager::core::tool_service::migrate_legacy_tool_keys has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (45 pts), loops 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::core::merge::snapshot::read_snapshot (cognitive 49) src-tauri/src/core/merge/snapshot.rs:62— skills_manager::core::merge::snapshot::read_snapshot has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 5 (19 pts), if/else 4 (16 pts), match/switch 3 (14 pts) (nesting depth added 37). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::core::scenario_service::sync_desired_targets (cognitive 49) src-tauri/src/core/scenario_service.rs:259— skills_manager::core::scenario_service::sync_desired_targets has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (39 pts), match/switch 2 (7 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 32). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::verify_deployment_state (cognitive 43) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1273— skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::verify_deployment_state has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (26 pts), match/switch 2 (9 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 28). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::core::scenario_service::apply_add (cognitive 41) src-tauri/src/core/scenario_service.rs:987— skills_manager::core::scenario_service::apply_add has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (27 pts), loops 7 (8 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_adopt (cognitive 39) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:2038— skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_adopt has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (27 pts), loops 5 (6 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::core::app_state::repoint_after_move (cognitive 35) src-tauri/src/core/app_state.rs:204— skills_manager::core::app_state::repoint_after_move has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (16 pts), loops 7 (10 pts), match/switch 4 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::core::sync_metadata::remove_stale_metadata_files (cognitive 35) src-tauri/src/core/sync_metadata.rs:313— skills_manager::core::sync_metadata::remove_stale_metadata_files has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (24 pts), loops 4 (10 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::core::scenario_service::sync_skill_to_active_scenario (cognitive 34) src-tauri/src/core/scenario_service.rs:594— skills_manager::core::scenario_service::sync_skill_to_active_scenario has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (21 pts), match/switch 2 (10 pts), loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 24). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_preset_deployment (cognitive 33) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:2766— skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_preset_deployment has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (24 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::core::auto_backup::run_round_blocking (cognitive 32) src-tauri/src/core/auto_backup.rs:200— skills_manager::core::auto_backup::run_round_blocking has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (21 pts), match/switch 6 (8 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_skill_deployment (cognitive 32) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1170— skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_skill_deployment has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (24 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::commands::agent_workspace::backfill_stranded_agent_targets (cognitive 31) src-tauri/src/commands/agent_workspace.rs:436— skills_manager::commands::agent_workspace::backfill_stranded_agent_targets has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (17 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::core::git_fetcher::find_skill_dir (cognitive 31) src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:1280— skills_manager::core::git_fetcher::find_skill_dir has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (28 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_presets (cognitive 31) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:2405— skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_presets has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), loops 2 (8 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 16). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
skills_manager::core::merge::decision::decide (cognitive 30) src-tauri/src/core/merge/decision.rs:73— skills_manager::core::merge::decision::decide has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), match/switch 4 (9 pts), loops 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::core::file_watcher::collect_watch_paths (cognitive 30) src-tauri/src/core/file_watcher.rs:154— skills_manager::core::file_watcher::collect_watch_paths has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (24 pts), loops 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::core::central_repo::ensure_central_repo (cognitive 30) src-tauri/src/core/central_repo.rs:798— skills_manager::core::central_repo::ensure_central_repo has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (22 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
skills_manager::core::merge::resolve::free_path_for (cognitive 29) src-tauri/src/core/merge/resolve.rs:263— skills_manager::core::merge::resolve::free_path_for has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (22 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
skills_manager::core::merge::treebuild::build_level (cognitive 28) src-tauri/src/core/merge/treebuild.rs:100— skills_manager::core::merge::treebuild::build_level has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (18 pts), match/switch 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::core::git_fetcher::try_update_cached_repo (cognitive 27) src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:353— skills_manager::core::git_fetcher::try_update_cached_repo has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (19 pts), match/switch 4 (6 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::core::merge::pending::effective_pending (cognitive 26) src-tauri/src/core/merge/pending.rs:84— skills_manager::core::merge::pending::effective_pending has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
skills_manager::commands::projects::get_project_skill_document (cognitive 26) src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:828— skills_manager::commands::projects::get_project_skill_document has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (21 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
FunctionTooLong: Settings.Settings src/views/Settings.tsx:158— FunctionTooLong — Settings runs 1454 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1354 over it, 14.54× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: MySkills.MySkills src/views/MySkills.tsx:136— FunctionTooLong — MySkills runs 1451 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1351 over it, 14.51× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: InstallSkills.InstallSkills src/views/InstallSkills.tsx:45— FunctionTooLong — InstallSkills runs 1310 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1210 over it, 13.10× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: ProjectDetail.ProjectDetail src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:127— FunctionTooLong — ProjectDetail runs 1147 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1047 over it, 11.47× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: Backup.Backup src/views/Backup.tsx:86— FunctionTooLong — Backup runs 1062 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 962 over it, 10.62× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: WorkspaceView.WorkspaceView src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:242— FunctionTooLong — WorkspaceView runs 839 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 739 over it, 8.39× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: Sidebar.Sidebar src/components/Sidebar.tsx:47— FunctionTooLong — Sidebar runs 612 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 512 over it, 6.12× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: skills_manager::core::tool_adapters::default_tool_adapters src-tauri/src/core/tool_adapters.rs:147— FunctionTooLong — skills_manager::core::tool_adapters::default_tool_adapters runs 596 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 496 over it, 5.96× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: AddSkillsSheet.AddSkillsSheetBody src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:71— FunctionTooLong — AddSkillsSheetBody runs 526 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 426 over it, 5.26× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: AppContext.AppProvider src/context/AppContext.tsx:46— FunctionTooLong — AppProvider runs 279 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 179 over it, 2.79× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: CommandPalette.CommandPalette src/components/CommandPalette.tsx:30— FunctionTooLong — CommandPalette runs 270 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 170 over it, 2.70× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: AddProjectDialog.AddProjectDialog src/components/AddProjectDialog.tsx:14— FunctionTooLong — AddProjectDialog runs 262 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 162 over it, 2.62× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: SkillDetailPanel.SkillDetailPanelContent src/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:78— FunctionTooLong — SkillDetailPanelContent runs 257 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 157 over it, 2.57× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: skills_manager::run src-tauri/src/lib.rs:804— FunctionTooLong — skills_manager::run runs 242 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 142 over it, 2.42× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: SkillProjectsSection.SkillProjectsSection src/components/SkillProjectsSection.tsx:29— FunctionTooLong — SkillProjectsSection runs 237 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 137 over it, 2.37× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: BatchTagDialog.BatchTagDialog src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx:20— FunctionTooLong — BatchTagDialog runs 188 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 88 over it, 1.88× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: skills_manager::core::scenario_service::apply_add src-tauri/src/core/scenario_service.rs:987— FunctionTooLong — skills_manager::core::scenario_service::apply_add runs 163 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 63 over it, 1.63× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_presets src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:2405— FunctionTooLong — skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_presets runs 153 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 53 over it, 1.53× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: skills_manager::core::merge::apply::object_merge_pull_unlocked src-tauri/src/core/merge/apply.rs:59— FunctionTooLong — skills_manager::core::merge::apply::object_merge_pull_unlocked runs 152 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 52 over it, 1.52× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_adopt src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:2038— FunctionTooLong — skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_adopt runs 137 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 37 over it, 1.37× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: WorkspaceView.WorkspaceSkillCard src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:54— FunctionTooLong — WorkspaceSkillCard runs 136 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 36 over it, 1.36× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_skills src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:817— FunctionTooLong — skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_skills runs 135 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 35 over it, 1.35× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: skills_manager::commands::skills::update_git_skill_internal src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:1876— FunctionTooLong — skills_manager::commands::skills::update_git_skill_internal runs 130 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 30 over it, 1.30× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: ProjectDetail.ProjectSkillDetailPanel src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1597— FunctionTooLong — ProjectSkillDetailPanel runs 130 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 30 over it, 1.30× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: Dashboard.Dashboard src/views/Dashboard.tsx:8— FunctionTooLong — Dashboard runs 128 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 28 over it, 1.28× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FileTooLong: bin/skills-manager-cli.rs src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs— FileTooLong — 2318 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), declaring 53 free functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1818 over it, 4.64× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: commands/skills.rs src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs— FileTooLong — 2158 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), declaring 65 free functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1658 over it, 4.32× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: views/Settings.tsx src/views/Settings.tsx— FileTooLong — 1584 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 92% of them inside a single declaration: Settings (158-1887). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1084 over it, 3.17× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: views/MySkills.tsx src/views/MySkills.tsx— FileTooLong — 1570 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 92% of them inside a single declaration: MySkills (136-1987). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1070 over it, 3.14× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: views/ProjectDetail.tsx src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx— FileTooLong — 1381 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 83% of them inside a single declaration: ProjectDetail (127-1595). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 881 over it, 2.76× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: views/InstallSkills.tsx src/views/InstallSkills.tsx— FileTooLong — 1352 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 97% of them inside a single declaration: InstallSkills (45-1629). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 852 over it, 2.70× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: views/Backup.tsx src/views/Backup.tsx— FileTooLong — 1135 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 94% of them inside a single declaration: Backup (86-1371). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 635 over it, 2.27× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: core/skill_store.rs src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs— FileTooLong — 1108 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 91% of them inside a single declaration: SkillStore (2 blocks, 13-1383). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 608 over it, 2.22× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: views/WorkspaceView.tsx src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx— FileTooLong — 1043 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 80% of them inside a single declaration: WorkspaceView (242-1307). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 543 over it, 2.09× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: core/git_backup.rs src-tauri/src/core/git_backup.rs— FileTooLong — 1011 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), declaring 66 free functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 511 over it, 2.02× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: core/git_fetcher.rs src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs— FileTooLong — 942 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), declaring 49 free functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 442 over it, 1.88× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: commands/projects.rs src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs— FileTooLong — 900 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), declaring 36 free functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 400 over it, 1.80× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: core/scenario_service.rs src-tauri/src/core/scenario_service.rs— FileTooLong — 864 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 364 over it, 1.73× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: core/tool_adapters.rs src-tauri/src/core/tool_adapters.rs— FileTooLong — 768 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 268 over it, 1.54× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/lib.rs src-tauri/src/lib.rs— FileTooLong — 760 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 260 over it, 1.52× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: merge/apply.rs src-tauri/src/core/merge/apply.rs— FileTooLong — 711 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 211 over it, 1.42× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: components/Sidebar.tsx src/components/Sidebar.tsx— FileTooLong — 654 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 94% of them inside a single declaration: Sidebar (47-774). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 154 over it, 1.31× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx— FileTooLong — 581 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 91% of them inside a single declaration: AddSkillsSheetBody (71-736). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 81 over it, 1.16× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: commands/git_backup.rs src-tauri/src/commands/git_backup.rs— FileTooLong — 575 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), declaring 35 free functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 75 over it, 1.15× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: lib/tauri.ts src/lib/tauri.ts— FileTooLong — 557 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 57 over it, 1.11× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: commands/settings.rs src-tauri/src/commands/settings.rs— FileTooLong — 515 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 15 over it, 1.03× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
Hotspot: src/views/MySkills.tsx src/views/MySkills.tsx:136— src/views/MySkills.tsx changed 17 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 281 in MySkills.MySkills at line 136. 12 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/views/MySkills.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:127— src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx changed 13 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 226 in ProjectDetail.ProjectDetail at line 127. 11 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/views/Backup.tsx src/views/Backup.tsx:86— src/views/Backup.tsx changed 15 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 176 in Backup.Backup at line 86. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 12 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/views/Backup.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/views/Settings.tsx src/views/Settings.tsx:158— src/views/Settings.tsx changed 15 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 170 in Settings.Settings at line 158. 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 10 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/views/Settings.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:242— src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 143 in WorkspaceView.WorkspaceView at line 242. 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:2405— src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs changed 15 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 28 in skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_presets at line 2405. 6 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 9 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:945— src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs changed 11 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 30 in skills_manager::core::git_fetcher::clone_repo_full at line 945. 6 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:71— src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 105 in AddSkillsSheet.AddSkillsSheetBody at line 71. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 2 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/components/Sidebar.tsx src/components/Sidebar.tsx:47— src/components/Sidebar.tsx changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 69 in Sidebar.Sidebar at line 47. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/components/Sidebar.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src-tauri/src/core/scenario_service.rs src-tauri/src/core/scenario_service.rs:987— src-tauri/src/core/scenario_service.rs changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 25 in skills_manager::core::scenario_service::apply_add at line 987. 7 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src-tauri/src/core/scenario_service.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src-tauri/src/commands/agent_workspace.rs src-tauri/src/commands/agent_workspace.rs:436— src-tauri/src/commands/agent_workspace.rs changed 9 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in skills_manager::commands::agent_workspace::backfill_stranded_agent_targets at line 436. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src-tauri/src/commands/agent_workspace.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src-tauri/src/core/central_repo.rs src-tauri/src/core/central_repo.rs:798— src-tauri/src/core/central_repo.rs changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in skills_manager::core::central_repo::ensure_central_repo at line 798. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src-tauri/src/core/central_repo.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/components/PresetBar.tsx src/components/PresetBar.tsx:23— src/components/PresetBar.tsx changed 4 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 26 in PresetBar.PresetBar at line 23. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/components/PresetBar.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src-tauri/src/core/app_state.rs src-tauri/src/core/app_state.rs:204— src-tauri/src/core/app_state.rs changed 4 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 24 in skills_manager::core::app_state::repoint_after_move at line 204. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src-tauri/src/core/app_state.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src-tauri/src/core/merge/validate.rs src-tauri/src/core/merge/validate.rs:63— src-tauri/src/core/merge/validate.rs changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 29 in skills_manager::core::merge::validate::validate_tree at line 63. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src-tauri/src/core/merge/validate.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/context/AppContext.tsx src/context/AppContext.tsx:46— src/context/AppContext.tsx changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 43 in AppContext.AppProvider at line 46. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/context/AppContext.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src-tauri/src/core/file_watcher.rs src-tauri/src/core/file_watcher.rs:286— src-tauri/src/core/file_watcher.rs changed 4 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in skills_manager::core::file_watcher::start_file_watcher at line 286. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src-tauri/src/core/file_watcher.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx:20— src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 29 in BatchTagDialog.BatchTagDialog at line 20. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src-tauri/src/core/auto_backup.rs src-tauri/src/core/auto_backup.rs:200— src-tauri/src/core/auto_backup.rs changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 27 in skills_manager::core::auto_backup::run_round_blocking at line 200. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src-tauri/src/core/auto_backup.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/components/FirstRunRestoreDialog.tsx src/components/FirstRunRestoreDialog.tsx:17— src/components/FirstRunRestoreDialog.tsx changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in FirstRunRestoreDialog.FirstRunRestoreDialog at line 17. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/components/FirstRunRestoreDialog.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
skills_manager::core::tool_service::migrate_legacy_tool_keys (cyclomatic 30) src-tauri/src/core/tool_service.rs:292— skills_manager::core::tool_service::migrate_legacy_tool_keys has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
skills_manager::core::git_fetcher::clone_repo_full (cyclomatic 30) src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:945— skills_manager::core::git_fetcher::clone_repo_full has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
skills_manager::core::merge::validate::validate_tree (cyclomatic 29) src-tauri/src/core/merge/validate.rs:63— skills_manager::core::merge::validate::validate_tree has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_presets (cyclomatic 28) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:2405— skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_presets has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
skills_manager::core::auto_backup::run_round_blocking (cyclomatic 27) src-tauri/src/core/auto_backup.rs:200— skills_manager::core::auto_backup::run_round_blocking has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
skills_manager::core::scenario_service::apply_add (cyclomatic 25) src-tauri/src/core/scenario_service.rs:987— skills_manager::core::scenario_service::apply_add has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_adopt (cyclomatic 25) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:2038— skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_adopt has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
skills_manager::core::app_state::repoint_after_move (cyclomatic 24) src-tauri/src/core/app_state.rs:204— skills_manager::core::app_state::repoint_after_move has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
skills_manager::core::merge::decision::decide (cyclomatic 18) src-tauri/src/core/merge/decision.rs:73— skills_manager::core::merge::decision::decide has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
skills_manager::commands::agent_workspace::backfill_stranded_agent_targets (cyclomatic 18) src-tauri/src/commands/agent_workspace.rs:436— skills_manager::commands::agent_workspace::backfill_stranded_agent_targets has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
skills_manager::core::merge::apply::object_merge_pull_unlocked (cyclomatic 18) src-tauri/src/core/merge/apply.rs:59— skills_manager::core::merge::apply::object_merge_pull_unlocked has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
skills_manager::core::scenario_service::sync_desired_targets (cyclomatic 18) src-tauri/src/core/scenario_service.rs:259— skills_manager::core::scenario_service::sync_desired_targets has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
skills_manager::core::merge::snapshot::read_snapshot (cyclomatic 17) src-tauri/src/core/merge/snapshot.rs:62— skills_manager::core::merge::snapshot::read_snapshot has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
skills_manager::core::git_fetcher::try_update_cached_repo (cyclomatic 17) src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:353— skills_manager::core::git_fetcher::try_update_cached_repo has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_preset_deployment (cyclomatic 17) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:2766— skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_preset_deployment has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_skills (cyclomatic 19) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded function is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
skills_manager::core::merge::treebuild::build_level (cyclomatic 16) src-tauri/src/core/merge/treebuild.rs:100— skills_manager::core::merge::treebuild::build_level has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
skills_manager::core::central_repo::ensure_central_repo (cyclomatic 16) src-tauri/src/core/central_repo.rs:798— skills_manager::core::central_repo::ensure_central_repo has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
skills_manager::core::merge::pending::effective_pending (cyclomatic 16) src-tauri/src/core/merge/pending.rs:84— skills_manager::core::merge::pending::effective_pending has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_skill_deployment (cyclomatic 16) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1170— skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_skill_deployment has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: skills_manager::bin::skills-manager-cli::run_skills (cyclomatic 19) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded function is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities· Medium vulnerability · ×9
ClassTooLong: Settings src/views/Settings.tsx:1— ClassTooLong — 1454 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 4 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 1054 over it, 3.64× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: MySkills src/views/MySkills.tsx:1— ClassTooLong — 1451 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 4 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 1051 over it, 3.63× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: InstallSkills src/views/InstallSkills.tsx:1— ClassTooLong — 1310 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 1 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 910 over it, 3.28× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: ProjectDetail src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1— ClassTooLong — 1147 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 7 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 747 over it, 2.87× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Backup src/views/Backup.tsx:1— ClassTooLong — 1062 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 5 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 662 over it, 2.66× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: SkillStore src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:13— ClassTooLong — 1004 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 65 methods, 2 blocks, lines 13-1383. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 604 over it, 2.51× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: WorkspaceView src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:1— ClassTooLong — 839 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 4 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 439 over it, 2.10× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Sidebar src/components/Sidebar.tsx:1— ClassTooLong — 612 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 2 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 212 over it, 1.53× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1608— src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1608-1614 | src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1651-1657 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:657— src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:657-663 | src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:733-739 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:406— src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:406-412 | src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:603-609 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:930— src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:930-936 | src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:1123-1129 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:291— src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:291-297 | src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:1000-1006 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:772— src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:772-778 | src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:1187-1193 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:1185— src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:1185-1191 | src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:1210-1216 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:1272— src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:1272-1278 | src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:1299-1305 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities· Medium advisory (unmaintained) · ×7
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities· Medium advisory (unsound) · ×7
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1196— src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1196-1201 | src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:2792-2797 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/commands/git_backup.rs:584— src-tauri/src/commands/git_backup.rs:584-589 | src-tauri/src/commands/git_backup.rs:608-613 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:1656— src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:1656-1661 | src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:1757-1762 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:289— src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:289-294 | src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:408-413 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:721— src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:721-726 | src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:981-986 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:527— src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:527-532 | src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:539-544 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:394— src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:394-399 | src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:874-879 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Repeated repair: src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:2530— src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs changed 18 times in last 90 days and 10 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 13 (its worst body is skills_manager::commands::skills::check_skill_update_internal_with_remote at line 2530), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(sync): gate every row-driven removal behind the ownership preflight”; “fix(hash): stop line endings alone from reading as an update”; “fix(update): stop a declined relink from erasing the state it was reached from”; “fix(update): guard relink, the last replacement a user can reach from the UI”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src-tauri/src/core/sync_engine.rs src-tauri/src/core/sync_engine.rs:20— src-tauri/src/core/sync_engine.rs changed 6 times in last 90 days and 6 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 9 (its worst body is skills_manager::core::sync_engine::ensure_dst_not_inside_src at line 20), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(sync): gate every row-driven removal behind the ownership preflight”; “fix(cli): report a deployment refusal's paths as data, not prose”; “fix(sync): never delete a deployment target we cannot prove is ours (#363)”; “fix(perf): address codex round-2 review of 736e760”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src-tauri/src/core/sync_engine.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:326— src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs changed 6 times in last 90 days and 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 14 (its worst body is skills_manager::commands::projects::set_project_skill_enabled_state at line 326), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(projects): let a unique content hash outrank another skill's directory”; “fix(projects): count one logical skill once and stop guessing its library match (#267)”; “fix(projects): judge the center's freshness by its files, not by a database column”; “fix(sync): never delete a deployment target we cannot prove is ours (#363)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src-tauri/src/commands/tools.rs src-tauri/src/commands/tools.rs:154— src-tauri/src/commands/tools.rs changed 5 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 7 (its worst body is skills_manager::commands::tools::set_all_tools_enabled at line 154), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(sync): keep a deployment another tool shares when disabling or unchecking one”; “fix(sync): gate every row-driven removal behind the ownership preflight”; “fix(agents): let a path edit stick when a built-in shadows a custom agent of the same key (#378)”; “fix(sync): never delete a deployment target we cannot prove is ours (#363)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src-tauri/src/commands/tools.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src-tauri/src/commands/sync.rs src-tauri/src/commands/sync.rs:120— src-tauri/src/commands/sync.rs changed 3 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 9 (its worst body is skills_manager::commands::sync::unsync_skill_from_tool at line 120), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(sync): keep a deployment another tool shares when disabling or unchecking one”; “fix(sync): gate every row-driven removal behind the ownership preflight”; “fix(sync): never delete a deployment target we cannot prove is ours (#363)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src-tauri/src/commands/sync.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src-tauri/src/core/content_hash.rs src-tauri/src/core/content_hash.rs:190— src-tauri/src/core/content_hash.rs changed 3 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 6 (its worst body is skills_manager::core::content_hash::fold_crlf at line 190), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(hash): stop line endings alone from reading as an update”; “fix(perf): move stranded-target backfill off setup, single-pass scan, watcher self-write mute (#248) (#285)”; “fix(sync): honor sync_mode in project workspace and local-skill updates (#225, #202) (#276)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 02:59:45 +10:00' --until='2026-09-27 02:59:45 +10:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src-tauri/src/core/content_hash.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:920— src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:920-928 | src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:1136-1144 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/installer.rs:83— src-tauri/src/core/installer.rs:83-91 | src-tauri/src/core/installer.rs:108-116 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:478— src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:478-486 | src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:499-507 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:353— src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:353-363 | src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:383-391 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:238— src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:238-246 | src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:250-258 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/git_backup.rs:598— src-tauri/src/core/git_backup.rs:598-606 | src-tauri/src/core/git_backup.rs:663-671 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
AC3 · Page structure· Heading level jumps from h1 to h3 · ×5
Heading level jumps from h1 to h3 src/views/Dashboard.tsx:89— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h1 to h3 src/views/InstallSkills.tsx:1006— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h1 to h3 src/views/MySkills.tsx:1359— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h1 to h3 src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1171— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Heading level jumps from h1 to h3 src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:1071— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/commands/git_backup.rs:1099— src-tauri/src/commands/git_backup.rs:1099-1106 | src-tauri/src/core/sync_metadata.rs:171-178 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/commands/settings.rs:236— src-tauri/src/commands/settings.rs:236-243 | src-tauri/src/commands/settings.rs:254-261 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/git_backup.rs:578— src-tauri/src/core/git_backup.rs:578-585 | src-tauri/src/core/git_backup.rs:649-656 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/git_credentials.rs:33— src-tauri/src/core/git_credentials.rs:33-40 | src-tauri/src/core/git_credentials.rs:75-82 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:914— src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:914-921 | src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:1107-1114 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/sync_metadata.rs:350— src-tauri/src/core/sync_metadata.rs:350-359 | src-tauri/src/core/sync_metadata.rs:381-390 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/git_backup.rs:12— src-tauri/src/core/git_backup.rs:12-21 | src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:26-35 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:819— src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:819-828 | src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:858-867 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:804— src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:804-813 | src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:817-826 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:337— src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:337-341 | src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:1110-1115 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:1511— src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:1511-1515 | src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:1594-1598 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/merge/snapshot.rs:108— src-tauri/src/core/merge/snapshot.rs:108-112 | src-tauri/src/core/merge/snapshot.rs:138-142 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/sync_engine.rs:543— src-tauri/src/core/sync_engine.rs:543-547 | src-tauri/src/core/sync_engine.rs:581-585 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Change coupling: project_scanner.rs ↔ tauri.ts src-tauri/src/core/project_scanner.rs— `src-tauri/src/core/project_scanner.rs` and `src/lib/tauri.ts` change together 70% of the time (7 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) and are written in DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, so no import can join them and they cannot be co-located into one unit — they compile and ship as separate artifacts. What binds them is a CONTRACT across that boundary — an event or message name, a route, a serialised shape — that each side currently spells out on its own, which is exactly why a change to one drags the other. Declare that contract once where both sides read it (a shared schema, a generated constants file, an interface-definition file) so a change on one side fails the other's build instead of drifting silently; where the surface is too small to be worth that, name the counterpart in a comment on both sides so the next reader finds it. There is nothing here to merge. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `1d882f30` feat: surface agent local skills; `e27ba2d3` feat: add bulk skill update actions; `64244aed` feat: add linked workspaces for external skill roots — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: ProjectDetail.tsx ↔ WorkspaceView.tsx src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx— `src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx` and `src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx` change together 61% of the time (17 of the 28 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency between them. They sit in the same directory, but in this ecosystem each file is its own module — a sibling reference still needs an import — so the missing import edge is real: the coupling runs through shared behaviour, not a declared dependency. If they duplicate structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 17 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `a1d9e87c` fix(ui): integrate multi-select into the workspace toolbars; `834644b4` fix(ui): align the toolbar control heights across library and workspaces; `8e84998a` feat(bulk): rework batch operations across the library and workspaces — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: project_scanner.rs ↔ ProjectDetail.tsx src-tauri/src/core/project_scanner.rs— `src-tauri/src/core/project_scanner.rs` and `src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx` change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) and are written in DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, so no import can join them and they cannot be co-located into one unit — they compile and ship as separate artifacts. What binds them is a CONTRACT across that boundary — an event or message name, a route, a serialised shape — that each side currently spells out on its own, which is exactly why a change to one drags the other. Declare that contract once where both sides read it (a shared schema, a generated constants file, an interface-definition file) so a change on one side fails the other's build instead of drifting silently; where the surface is too small to be worth that, name the counterpart in a comment on both sides so the next reader finds it. There is nothing here to merge. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `f364d352` fix: handle linked workspace skill duplicates safely (#67); `64244aed` feat: add linked workspaces for external skill roots; `eb9502d4` feat: support nested project skills and refine skill markers — run `git show` on any of them.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1245— src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1245-1258 | src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:2849-2862 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:835— src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:835-848 | src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:869-882 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:316— src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:316-329 | src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:1033-1046 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2 locations) src/views/MySkills.tsx:599— src/views/MySkills.tsx:599 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:845 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2 locations) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1263— src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1263 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1405 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2 locations) src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:113— src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:113 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:182 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2 locations) src/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:125— src/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:125 · src/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:151 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2 locations) src/views/Settings.tsx:940— src/views/Settings.tsx:940 · src/views/Settings.tsx:998 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2 locations) src/views/Settings.tsx:1527— src/views/Settings.tsx:1527 · src/views/Settings.tsx:1641 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:433— src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:433 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:420 — 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.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:692— src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:692 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:816 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:548— src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:548 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:572 — 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.
TooManyFunctions: skills_manager::core::central_repo src-tauri/src/core/central_repo.rs:19— TooManyFunctions — 43 free functions. The bar is 30 free functions; this is 13 over it, 1.43× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: skills_manager::core::sync_metadata src-tauri/src/core/sync_metadata.rs:65— TooManyFunctions — 33 free functions. The bar is 30 free functions; this is 3 over it, 1.10× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:1087— src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:1087-1097 | src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:1151-1161 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/commands/sync.rs:107— src-tauri/src/commands/sync.rs:107-117 | src-tauri/src/commands/sync.rs:196-206 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1234— src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1234-1240 | src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:2833-2840 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/merge/decision.rs:135— src-tauri/src/core/merge/decision.rs:135-142 | src-tauri/src/core/merge/decision.rs:177-183 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (29 lines × 2 locations) src/views/MySkills.tsx:1121— src/views/MySkills.tsx:1121 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:918 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Duplicated block (29 lines × 2 locations) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:65— src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:65 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:212 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 2 locations) src/components/Sidebar.tsx:481— src/components/Sidebar.tsx:481 · src/components/Sidebar.tsx:648 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 2 locations) src/components/Sidebar.tsx:513— src/components/Sidebar.tsx:513 · src/components/Sidebar.tsx:677 — 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.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) src/components/PresetBar.tsx:61— src/components/PresetBar.tsx:61 · src/components/PresetBar.tsx:94 — 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.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) src/views/Settings.tsx:1569— src/views/Settings.tsx:1569 · src/views/Settings.tsx:1597 — 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.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 2 locations) src/components/AddProjectDialog.tsx:109— src/components/AddProjectDialog.tsx:109 · src/components/TagRenameDialog.tsx:29 — 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.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 2 locations) src/views/Settings.tsx:960— src/views/Settings.tsx:960 · src/views/Settings.tsx:1026 — 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.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:914— src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:914 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:912 — 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.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:628— src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:628 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:647 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
AC3 · Page structure· Page without a main landmark · ×1
Page without a main landmark index.html:2— No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. This document's body is only the mount point <div id="root">, so there is no content here to wrap — render the <main> from the component mounted into it.
AC3 · Page structure· Heading level jumps from h2 to h4 · ×1
Heading level jumps from h2 to h4 src/views/Dashboard.tsx:146— Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
AC7 · A11y enforcement· Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1
Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y) 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 47 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.
MySkills.MySkills (cyclomatic 281) src/views/MySkills.tsx:136— MySkills.MySkills has cyclomatic complexity 281 (threshold 15). Of this number, 31 points are the body's own statements and 250 belong to 74 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ProjectDetail.ProjectDetail (cyclomatic 226) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:127— ProjectDetail.ProjectDetail has cyclomatic complexity 226 (threshold 15). Of this number, 34 points are the body's own statements and 192 belong to 46 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
InstallSkills.InstallSkills (cyclomatic 191) src/views/InstallSkills.tsx:45— InstallSkills.InstallSkills has cyclomatic complexity 191 (threshold 15). Of this number, 55 points are the body's own statements and 136 belong to 51 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Backup.Backup (cyclomatic 176) src/views/Backup.tsx:86— Backup.Backup has cyclomatic complexity 176 (threshold 15). Of this number, 56 points are the body's own statements and 120 belong to 33 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Settings.Settings (cyclomatic 170) src/views/Settings.tsx:158— Settings.Settings has cyclomatic complexity 170 (threshold 15). Of this number, 42 points are the body's own statements and 128 belong to 47 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
WorkspaceView.WorkspaceView (cyclomatic 143) src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:242— WorkspaceView.WorkspaceView has cyclomatic complexity 143 (threshold 15). Of this number, 42 points are the body's own statements and 101 belong to 45 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
AddSkillsSheet.AddSkillsSheetBody (cyclomatic 105) src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:71— AddSkillsSheet.AddSkillsSheetBody has cyclomatic complexity 105 (threshold 15). Of this number, 23 points are the body's own statements and 82 belong to 29 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Sidebar.Sidebar (cyclomatic 69) src/components/Sidebar.tsx:47— Sidebar.Sidebar has cyclomatic complexity 69 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 15 of the 69 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 22 function literals inside it that branch (lines 610, 242, 190, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
SkillDetailPanel.SkillDetailPanelContent (cyclomatic 57) src/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:78— SkillDetailPanel.SkillDetailPanelContent has cyclomatic complexity 57 (threshold 15). Of this number, 35 points are the body's own statements and 22 belong to 12 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
SkillProjectsSection.SkillProjectsSection (cyclomatic 53) src/components/SkillProjectsSection.tsx:29— SkillProjectsSection.SkillProjectsSection has cyclomatic complexity 53 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 5 of the 53 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 10 function literals inside it that branch (lines 224, 108, 256, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
AppContext.AppProvider (cyclomatic 43) src/context/AppContext.tsx:46— AppContext.AppProvider has cyclomatic complexity 43 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 43 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 23 function literals inside it that branch (lines 356, 75, 346, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
CommandPalette.CommandPalette (cyclomatic 38) src/components/CommandPalette.tsx:30— CommandPalette.CommandPalette has cyclomatic complexity 38 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 38 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 14 function literals inside it that branch (lines 55, 249, 221, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
AddProjectDialog.AddProjectDialog (cyclomatic 37) src/components/AddProjectDialog.tsx:14— AddProjectDialog.AddProjectDialog has cyclomatic complexity 37 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 20 belong to 12 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
BatchTagDialog.BatchTagDialog (cyclomatic 29) src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx:20— BatchTagDialog.BatchTagDialog has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 9 of the 29 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 10 function literals inside it that branch (lines 48, 61, 37, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
PresetBar.PresetBar (cyclomatic 26) src/components/PresetBar.tsx:23— PresetBar.PresetBar has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 26 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 5 function literals inside it that branch (lines 52, 85, 126, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
ProjectDetail.ProjectSkillDetailPanel (cyclomatic 26) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1597— ProjectDetail.ProjectSkillDetailPanel has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
gitErrors.mapGitErrorMessage (cyclomatic 22) src/lib/gitErrors.ts:8— gitErrors.mapGitErrorMessage has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
SkillPickerRow.SkillPickerRow (cyclomatic 22) src/components/SkillPickerRow.tsx:19— SkillPickerRow.SkillPickerRow has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
ProjectAgentDots.ProjectAgentDots (cyclomatic 21) src/components/ProjectAgentDots.tsx:35— ProjectAgentDots.ProjectAgentDots has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). Of this number, 12 points are the body's own statements and 9 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
useMultiSelect.useMultiSelect (cyclomatic 19) src/hooks/useMultiSelect.ts:26— useMultiSelect.useMultiSelect has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 9 of the 19 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 5 function literals inside it that branch (lines 109, 63, 107, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
AgentControlSetupCard.AgentControlSetupCard (cyclomatic 18) src/components/AgentControlSetupCard.tsx:27— AgentControlSetupCard.AgentControlSetupCard has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Of this number, 10 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 4 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
SyncDots.SyncDots (cyclomatic 18) src/components/SyncDots.tsx:46— SyncDots.SyncDots has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 18 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 112, 58, 61). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
WorkspaceView.WorkspaceSkillCard (cyclomatic 18) src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:54— WorkspaceView.WorkspaceSkillCard has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
FirstRunRestoreDialog.FirstRunRestoreDialog (cyclomatic 16) src/components/FirstRunRestoreDialog.tsx:17— FirstRunRestoreDialog.FirstRunRestoreDialog has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 30, 26, 49, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
RenamePresetDialog.RenamePresetDialog (cyclomatic 16) src/components/RenamePresetDialog.tsx:15— RenamePresetDialog.RenamePresetDialog has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 8 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 4 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
BatchSyncAgentDialog.BatchSyncAgentDialog (cyclomatic 16) src/components/BatchSyncAgentDialog.tsx:22— BatchSyncAgentDialog.BatchSyncAgentDialog has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 5 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 7 function literals inside it that branch (lines 108, 31, 27, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
MySkills.MySkills (cognitive 331) src/views/MySkills.tsx:136— MySkills.MySkills has cognitive complexity 331 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 102 (127 pts), boolean chains 89, ternaries 37 (78 pts), error handling 23 (27 pts), loops 7 (9 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 72). Of this number, 26 points are the body's own statements and 305 belong to 74 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ProjectDetail.ProjectDetail (cognitive 273) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:127— ProjectDetail.ProjectDetail has cognitive complexity 273 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 83 (108 pts), ternaries 26 (73 pts), boolean chains 54, error handling 17 (23 pts), loops 13 (15 pts) (nesting depth added 80). Of this number, 29 points are the body's own statements and 244 belong to 46 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Backup.Backup (cognitive 200) src/views/Backup.tsx:86— Backup.Backup has cognitive complexity 200 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 59 (69 pts), ternaries 29 (61 pts), boolean chains 53, error handling 15, loops 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 42). Of this number, 62 points are the body's own statements and 138 belong to 33 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Settings.Settings (cognitive 185) src/views/Settings.tsx:158— Settings.Settings has cognitive complexity 185 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 48 (64 pts), boolean chains 46, if/else 36 (44 pts), error handling 27 (30 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 27). Of this number, 44 points are the body's own statements and 141 belong to 47 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
WorkspaceView.WorkspaceView (cognitive 167) src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:242— WorkspaceView.WorkspaceView has cognitive complexity 167 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 33 (65 pts), if/else 39 (49 pts), boolean chains 36, error handling 8 (10 pts), loops 6 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 45). Of this number, 61 points are the body's own statements and 106 belong to 45 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
AddSkillsSheet.AddSkillsSheetBody (cognitive 139) src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:71— AddSkillsSheet.AddSkillsSheetBody has cognitive complexity 139 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 48 (67 pts), boolean chains 27, ternaries 16 (22 pts), loops 7 (15 pts), error handling 4 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 37). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 121 belong to 29 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
InstallSkills.InstallSkills (cognitive 127) src/views/InstallSkills.tsx:45— InstallSkills.InstallSkills has cognitive complexity 127 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 49 (57 pts), boolean chains 48, error handling 11, ternaries 5 (6 pts), loops 5 (nesting depth added 9). Of this number, 31 points are the body's own statements and 96 belong to 51 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
SkillDetailPanel.SkillDetailPanelContent (cognitive 66) src/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:78— SkillDetailPanel.SkillDetailPanelContent has cognitive complexity 66 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 16 (39 pts), boolean chains 17, if/else 9, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 23). Of this number, 49 points are the body's own statements and 17 belong to 12 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
AppContext.AppProvider (cognitive 56) src/context/AppContext.tsx:46— AppContext.AppProvider has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (35 pts), error handling 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 8 (nesting depth added 14). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 56 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 23 function literals inside it that branch (lines 356, 75, 177, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Sidebar.Sidebar (cognitive 46) src/components/Sidebar.tsx:47— Sidebar.Sidebar has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 19, if/else 14, ternaries 12, loops 1. Most of this is not in the body itself: 14 of the 46 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 22 function literals inside it that branch (lines 152, 242, 190, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
SkillProjectsSection.SkillProjectsSection (cognitive 43) src/components/SkillProjectsSection.tsx:29— SkillProjectsSection.SkillProjectsSection has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 17, if/else 12 (14 pts), ternaries 5 (6 pts), error handling 3, loops 3 (nesting depth added 3). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 43 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 10 function literals inside it that branch (lines 224, 53, 108, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
ProjectDetail.ProjectSkillDetailPanel (cognitive 43) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1597— ProjectDetail.ProjectSkillDetailPanel has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 12 (33 pts), boolean chains 10 (nesting depth added 21). Of this number, 33 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
AddProjectDialog.AddProjectDialog (cognitive 40) src/components/AddProjectDialog.tsx:14— AddProjectDialog.AddProjectDialog has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 8 (15 pts), if/else 10 (12 pts), boolean chains 8, error handling 3 (4 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 10). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 22 belong to 12 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
PresetBar.PresetBar (cognitive 37) src/components/PresetBar.tsx:23— PresetBar.PresetBar has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (16 pts), error handling 4 (8 pts), loops 5 (7 pts), ternaries 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 11). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 37 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 5 function literals inside it that branch (lines 52, 85, 126, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
CommandPalette.CommandPalette (cognitive 36) src/components/CommandPalette.tsx:30— CommandPalette.CommandPalette has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 16, if/else 14 (16 pts), ternaries 4 (nesting depth added 2). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 36 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 14 function literals inside it that branch (lines 55, 249, 221, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
BatchTagDialog.BatchTagDialog (cognitive 30) src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx:20— BatchTagDialog.BatchTagDialog has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, boolean chains 7, ternaries 5 (7 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 3). Most of this is not in the body itself: 7 of the 30 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 10 function literals inside it that branch (lines 48, 61, 37, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
SkillPickerRow.SkillPickerRow (cognitive 24) src/components/SkillPickerRow.tsx:19— SkillPickerRow.SkillPickerRow has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 8 (13 pts), boolean chains 11 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
useMultiSelect.useMultiSelect (cognitive 23) src/hooks/useMultiSelect.ts:26— useMultiSelect.useMultiSelect has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (16 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 4). Of this number, 12 points are the body's own statements and 11 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
presetStatus.computePresetStatus (cognitive 23) src/lib/presetStatus.ts:15— presetStatus.computePresetStatus has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (17 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ProjectAgentDots.ProjectAgentDots (cognitive 23) src/components/ProjectAgentDots.tsx:35— ProjectAgentDots.ProjectAgentDots has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 7 (9 pts), boolean chains 7, if/else 3 (5 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 4). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
SyncDots.SyncDots (cognitive 21) src/components/SyncDots.tsx:46— SyncDots.SyncDots has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 7 (8 pts), boolean chains 6, if/else 3 (5 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 4). Most of this is not in the body itself: 10 of the 21 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 112, 58, 61). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
BatchSyncAgentDialog.BatchSyncAgentDialog (cognitive 20) src/components/BatchSyncAgentDialog.tsx:22— BatchSyncAgentDialog.BatchSyncAgentDialog has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 6 (10 pts), if/else 7, boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 4). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 20 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 7 function literals inside it that branch (lines 108, 31, 64, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
WorkspaceView.WorkspaceSkillCard (cognitive 17) src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:54— WorkspaceView.WorkspaceSkillCard has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 11, ternaries 3 (5 pts), if/else 1 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
gitErrors.mapGitErrorMessage (cognitive 16) src/lib/gitErrors.ts:8— gitErrors.mapGitErrorMessage has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8, boolean chains 7, ternaries 1. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Duplicate DTOs for GitHub connection state. Both types expose `url`, `login`, `repo_created`, and `repo_private`. `GithubBackupConnectResult` adds `remote_has_content` while `GithubConnectInfo` adds `repo_full_name`. This suggests two different layers (commands vs core API) are returning nearly identical data structures without sharing a common type. · ×1
Duplicate DTOs for GitHub connection state. Both types expose `url`, `login`, `repo_created`, and `repo_private`. `GithubBackupConnectResult` adds `remote_has_content` while `GithubConnectInfo` adds `repo_full_name`. This suggests two different layers (commands vs core API) are returning nearly identical data structures without sharing a common type. — Extract a shared `GithubConnectionInfo` type in the core module and use it in both the command result and the API response. Remove the duplication. (signatures: skills_manager.commands.git_backup.GithubBackupConnectResult | skills_manager.core.github_api.GithubConnectInfo)
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Nearly identical result types for distinct operations. `UpdateSkillResult` and `ReimportSkillResult` share `skill`, `pending_removals`, and `removal_approval`. The only difference is the type name, implying the operations are handled separately despite having identical output contracts. This forces callers to handle two different types for effectively the same outcome. · ×1
Nearly identical result types for distinct operations. `UpdateSkillResult` and `ReimportSkillResult` share `skill`, `pending_removals`, and `removal_approval`. The only difference is the type name, implying the operations are handled separately despite having identical output contracts. This forces callers to handle two different types for effectively the same outcome. — Unify into a single `SkillModificationResult` (or similar) used by both update and reimport commands, or ensure the command layer returns a generic result that wraps the specific operation context if needed. (signatures: skills_manager.commands.skills.UpdateSkillResult | skills_manager.commands.skills.ReimportSkillResult)
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Duplicate scanning result structures. Both `ScanResultDto` and `ScanPlan` contain `tools_scanned`, `skills_found`, and a group/collection of discovered items (`groups` vs `discovered`). `ScanResultDto` is a DTO (likely for API/IPC) while `ScanPlan` is an internal core type, but they represent the same semantic state of a scan operation. · ×1
Duplicate scanning result structures. Both `ScanResultDto` and `ScanPlan` contain `tools_scanned`, `skills_found`, and a group/collection of discovered items (`groups` vs `discovered`). `ScanResultDto` is a DTO (likely for API/IPC) while `ScanPlan` is an internal core type, but they represent the same semantic state of a scan operation. — If `ScanPlan` is an internal representation, ensure it is not exposed as a public API surface if it duplicates the DTO. If both are public, consider if `ScanPlan` is necessary or if the DTO should be derived from a single source of truth. (signatures: skills_manager.commands.scan.ScanResultDto | skills_manager.core.scanner.ScanPlan)
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Overlapping document types. `SkillDocumentDto` and `SourceSkillDocumentDto` both contain `skill_id`, `filename`, and `content`. `SourceSkillDocumentDto` adds `source_label` and `revision`. This suggests a hierarchy or distinction between 'current' and 'source' documents that is not clearly reflected in the naming or structure, potentially confusing consumers about which to use. · ×1
Overlapping document types. `SkillDocumentDto` and `SourceSkillDocumentDto` both contain `skill_id`, `filename`, and `content`. `SourceSkillDocumentDto` adds `source_label` and `revision`. This suggests a hierarchy or distinction between 'current' and 'source' documents that is not clearly reflected in the naming or structure, potentially confusing consumers about which to use. — Clarify the distinction. If `SourceSkillDocumentDto` is a superset, consider if `SkillDocumentDto` can be a view or if they should be unified with an optional `source_label` field. Ensure the naming clearly indicates 'current' vs 'source'. (signatures: skills_manager.commands.skills.SkillDocumentDto | skills_manager.commands.skills.SourceSkillDocumentDto)
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Inconsistent naming for audit record vs builder. `AuditEntry` is the final record, while `AuditDraft` is the builder. This is generally acceptable, but `AuditEntry` properties like `skill_id` are `PathBuf` while `AuditDraft` methods take `impl Into<String>`. The internal representation (`PathBuf`) vs input interface (`String`) mismatch is inconsistent with other parts of the API where `String` is often used for IDs. · ×1
Inconsistent naming for audit record vs builder. `AuditEntry` is the final record, while `AuditDraft` is the builder. This is generally acceptable, but `AuditEntry` properties like `skill_id` are `PathBuf` while `AuditDraft` methods take `impl Into<String>`. The internal representation (`PathBuf`) vs input interface (`String`) mismatch is inconsistent with other parts of the API where `String` is often used for IDs. — Standardize ID types. If IDs are paths, use `PathBuf` consistently. If they are strings, use `String`. The mix of `PathBuf` and `String` for IDs across the API (e.g., `ProjectDto.path` is String, `AuditEntry.skill_id` is PathBuf) is a broader inconsistency. (signatures: skills_manager.core.audit_log.AuditEntry | skills_manager.core.audit_log.AuditDraft)
TooManyMethods: SkillStore src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:13— TooManyMethods — 65 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 35 over it, 2.17× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Near-duplicate member pair (58 shared lines) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1176— src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1176-1271 | src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:2772-2876 — These two members are variants of one another: 58 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:833— src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:833-910 | src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:918-1007 | src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:1134-1196 | src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:1205-1224 | src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:1232-1265 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1203— src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1203-1233 | src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:2799-2829 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (13–21 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/git_backup.rs:446— src-tauri/src/core/git_backup.rs:446-466 | src-tauri/src/core/git_backup.rs:533-545 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (17–19 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/scenario_service.rs:672— src-tauri/src/core/scenario_service.rs:672-690 | src-tauri/src/core/scenario_service.rs:717-733 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:153— src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:153-170 | src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:205-222 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1715— src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1715-1730 | src-tauri/src/bin/skills-manager-cli.rs:1738-1752 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/commands/agent_workspace.rs:201— src-tauri/src/commands/agent_workspace.rs:201-216 | src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:895-910 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:909— src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:909-923 | src-tauri/src/core/git_fetcher.rs:1009-1020 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/core/scanner.rs:63— src-tauri/src/core/scanner.rs:63-71 | src-tauri/src/core/scanner.rs:125-134 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 5) src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:834— src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:834-841 | src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:919-926 | src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:1135-1142 | src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:1206-1213 | src-tauri/src/commands/projects.rs:1233-1240 — all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:997— src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:997-1011 | src-tauri/src/commands/skills.rs:1096-1110 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:310— src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:310-319 | src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:787-794 | src-tauri/src/core/skill_store.rs:958-968 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplication concentrated across 4 sibling directories (19 clone groups) src/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:234— 19 duplicated blocks under src/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories components, context, hooks, views — 13 of them are reported below, and 6 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 19 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 19 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 19 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.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (135 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (135 matched lines × 2 locations) src/components/ProjectAgentDots.tsx:8— src/components/ProjectAgentDots.tsx:8 · src/components/SyncDots.tsx:8 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 797 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.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (77 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (77 matched lines × 2 locations) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1285— src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1285 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1427 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 404 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.
Duplicated block (69 lines × 2 locations) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1012— src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1012 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:980 — 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.
Duplicated block (48 lines × 2 locations) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1695— src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1695 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:1193 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
Duplicated block (43 lines × 2 locations) src/views/MySkills.tsx:1469— src/views/MySkills.tsx:1469 · src/views/MySkills.tsx:1809 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
Duplicated block (40 lines × 2 locations) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:949— src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:949 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:934 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Duplicated block (38 lines × 2 locations) src/components/CreatePresetDialog.tsx:69— src/components/CreatePresetDialog.tsx:69 · src/components/RenamePresetDialog.tsx:72 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Duplicated block (35 lines × 3 locations) src/views/MySkills.tsx:1191— src/views/MySkills.tsx:1191 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:954 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:939 — the 3 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. 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.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (32 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (32 matched lines × 2 locations) src/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:234— src/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:234 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1654 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 156 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.
Duplicated block (31 lines × 2 locations) src/components/CreatePresetDialog.tsx:31— src/components/CreatePresetDialog.tsx:31 · src/components/RenamePresetDialog.tsx:44 — 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.
Duplicated block (30 lines × 2 locations) src/views/MySkills.tsx:683— src/views/MySkills.tsx:683 · src/views/MySkills.tsx:726 — 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.
Duplicated block (28 lines × 2 locations) src/views/MySkills.tsx:1429— src/views/MySkills.tsx:1429 · src/views/MySkills.tsx:1688 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
Duplicated block (27 lines × 2 locations) src/components/Sidebar.tsx:421— src/components/Sidebar.tsx:421 · src/components/Sidebar.tsx:579 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
Duplicated block (25 lines × 2 locations) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1230— src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1230 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1381 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) src/views/Settings.tsx:1677— src/views/Settings.tsx:1677 · src/views/Settings.tsx:1699 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 3 locations) src/views/MySkills.tsx:1251— src/views/MySkills.tsx:1251 · src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1042 · src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:1010 — 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.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (18 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
Duplicated block with local edits (18 matched lines × 2 locations) src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:213— src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:213 · src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:254 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 97 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.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) src/components/Sidebar.tsx:112— src/components/Sidebar.tsx:112 · src/components/Sidebar.tsx:131 — 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.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 3 locations) src/components/Sidebar.tsx:344— src/components/Sidebar.tsx:344 · src/components/Sidebar.tsx:490 · src/components/Sidebar.tsx:657 — all 3 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.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx:231— src/components/BatchTagDialog.tsx:231 · src/components/GitSetupDialog.tsx:88 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Complex function Backup (cyclomatic 55, cognitive 51) src/views/Backup.tsx:86— Backup has cyclomatic complexity 55 and cognitive complexity 51; 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.
Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 51, cognitive 57) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:1199— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 51 and cognitive complexity 57; 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.
Complex function WorkspaceView (cyclomatic 50, cognitive 48) src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:242— WorkspaceView has cyclomatic complexity 50 and cognitive complexity 48; 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.
Complex function InstallSkills (cyclomatic 44, cognitive 41) src/views/InstallSkills.tsx:45— InstallSkills has cyclomatic complexity 44 and cognitive complexity 41; 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.
Complex function Settings (cyclomatic 42, cognitive 39) src/views/Settings.tsx:158— Settings has cyclomatic complexity 42 and cognitive complexity 39; 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.
Complex function SkillDetailPanelContent (cyclomatic 39, cognitive 32) src/components/SkillDetailPanel.tsx:78— SkillDetailPanelContent has cyclomatic complexity 39 and cognitive complexity 32; 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.
Complex function ProjectDetail (cyclomatic 36, cognitive 32) src/views/ProjectDetail.tsx:127— ProjectDetail has cyclomatic complexity 36 and cognitive complexity 32; 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.
Complex function MySkills (cyclomatic 35, cognitive 31) src/views/MySkills.tsx:136— MySkills has cyclomatic complexity 35 and cognitive complexity 31; 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.
Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 30, cognitive 27) src/views/MySkills.tsx:1412— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 30 and cognitive complexity 27; 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.
Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 26, cognitive 23) src/views/MySkills.tsx:1673— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 26 and cognitive complexity 23; 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.
Complex function renderAgentCard (cyclomatic 25, cognitive 20) src/views/Settings.tsx:837— renderAgentCard has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 20; 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.
Complex function AddSkillsSheetBody (cyclomatic 23, cognitive 19) src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:71— AddSkillsSheetBody has cyclomatic complexity 23 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 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.
Complex function handleBackupNow (cyclomatic 22, cognitive 27) src/views/Backup.tsx:434— handleBackupNow has cyclomatic complexity 22 and cognitive complexity 27; 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.
Complex function SkillPickerRow (cyclomatic 22, cognitive 19) src/components/SkillPickerRow.tsx:19— SkillPickerRow has cyclomatic complexity 22 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 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.
Complex function mapGitErrorMessage (cyclomatic 22, cognitive 16) src/lib/gitErrors.ts:8— mapGitErrorMessage has cyclomatic complexity 22 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 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.
Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 21, cognitive 21) src/views/Backup.tsx:290— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 21 and cognitive complexity 21; 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.
Complex function handleInstall (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 31) src/components/AddSkillsSheet.tsx:380— handleInstall has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 31; 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.
Complex function WorkspaceSkillCard (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 15) src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:54— WorkspaceSkillCard has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 15; 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.
Complex function handleReportIssue (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 23) src/views/Settings.tsx:559— handleReportIssue has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 23; 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.
Complex function renderLocalSkillActions (cyclomatic 16, cognitive 14) src/views/WorkspaceView.tsx:722— renderLocalSkillActions has cyclomatic complexity 16 and cognitive complexity 14; 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.
Test Coverage — 0% of 63 production file(s) reachable from 0 test file(s) via the import graph — 'production' here is the RESIDUE: every source file left once tests, tooling, generated output, config, declarations and declaration-only modules, fixture corpora, type fixtures, behaviour-free data modules, re-export barrels, registration/constant data modules and service workers are set aside, so the percentage is taken over a smaller denominator than the workspace's file count
Dead file (~40 LoC) src/components/InstallToast.tsx— no import path from any entry point (3 application, 5 tooling, 0 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
Unused dependency '@tauri-apps/plugin-shell' — Declared in the root package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
Duplicated predicate src-tauri/src/commands/git_backup.rs:504— `msg.contains("non-fast-forward") || msg.contains("fetch first") || msg.contains("[rejected]") || msg.contains("failed to push some refs")` appears character-identically in 2 files — src-tauri/src/commands/git_backup.rs, src-tauri/src/core/auto_backup.rs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate src-tauri/src/commands/presets.rs:786— `target.skill_id == "first" && target.target_path.ends_with("skill123")` appears character-identically in 2 files — src-tauri/src/commands/presets.rs, src-tauri/src/commands/tools.rs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate src-tauri/src/commands/presets.rs:789— `target.skill_id == "second" && target.target_path.ends_with("skill123-2")` appears character-identically in 2 files — src-tauri/src/commands/presets.rs, src-tauri/src/commands/tools.rs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 1 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `src-tauri` (39153 LoC, 158 public types across 5 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.
No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
M2 · Architecture documentation· No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 29791 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.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex src-tauri/src/core/skillssh_api.rs:164— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Rust code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Silent fallback default on Err src-tauri/src/core/git_backup.rs:702— `current_branch` turns every `Err` into `"main".to_string()` — a failure becomes a plausible value and a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or propagate it with `?`. If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment on the arm or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
Subsumed condition operand src-tauri/src/core/git2_engine.rs:373— `msg.contains("non-fast-forward")` can never decide this `||` — every value satisfying `msg.contains("non-fast-forward")` also satisfies `msg.contains("fast-forward")`, so the `||` chain is already decided by the latter. The expression is equivalent to the chain without it, which means it is wider than it reads. Delete the dead operand, or narrow the surviving one if IT is the accident.
Outdated: anyhow — `anyhow` is locked at 1.0.102 but 1.0.104 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p anyhow` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: chrono — `chrono` is locked at 0.4.44 but 0.4.45 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.4"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p chrono` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: clap — `clap` is locked at 4.5.60 but 4.6.7 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"4.5"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p clap` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: junction — `junction` is locked at 2.0.0 but 2.1.0 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"2"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p junction` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: log — `log` is locked at 0.4.29 but 0.4.34 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.4"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p log` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: regex — `regex` is locked at 1.12.3 but 1.13.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p regex` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: semver — `semver` is locked at 1.0.27 but 1.0.28 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p semver` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: serde — `serde` is locked at 1.0.228 but 1.0.229 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p serde` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: serde_json — `serde_json` is locked at 1.0.149 but 1.0.151 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p serde_json` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tauri — `tauri` is locked at 2.10.2 but 2.12.0 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"2.10.0"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tauri` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tauri-build — `tauri-build` is locked at 2.5.5 but 2.7.0 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"2.5.4"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tauri-build` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tauri-plugin-clipboard-manager — `tauri-plugin-clipboard-manager` is locked at 2.3.2 but 2.4.0 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"2"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tauri-plugin-clipboard-manager` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tauri-plugin-dialog — `tauri-plugin-dialog` is locked at 2.6.0 but 2.8.0 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"2"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tauri-plugin-dialog` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tauri-plugin-log — `tauri-plugin-log` is locked at 2.8.0 but 2.10.0 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"2"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tauri-plugin-log` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tauri-plugin-opener — `tauri-plugin-opener` is locked at 2.5.3 but 2.7.0 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"2"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tauri-plugin-opener` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tauri-plugin-shell — `tauri-plugin-shell` is locked at 2.3.5 but 2.4.0 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"2"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tauri-plugin-shell` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tauri-plugin-single-instance — `tauri-plugin-single-instance` is locked at 2.4.0 but 2.5.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"2"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tauri-plugin-single-instance` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tauri-plugin-updater — `tauri-plugin-updater` is locked at 2.10.0 but 2.13.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"2"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tauri-plugin-updater` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tempfile — `tempfile` is locked at 3.26.0 but 3.27.0 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"3.26.0"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tempfile` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tokio — `tokio` is locked at 1.49.0 but 1.53.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tokio` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: uuid — `uuid` is locked at 1.21.0 but 1.26.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1"` requirement declared in src-tauri/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p uuid` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
Run 01a0f179-af6b-76ad-b48c-04266899536c · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 67 · Warnings: 381 · Recommendations: 25 · Info: 21 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 30-09-2026 @ 08:41 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.