storytold/materialcraft

Executive summary

storytold/materialcraft is rated At risk because critical security findings are open, most of them in the build pipeline. It scores 68 out of 100, which the At risk rating leaves unchanged. We judged it as a preview release, against a lower bar.

Production Readiness, at 61, is the weakest lens and counts most in the score. The best first step for the work it takes is recording design decisions, worth about 3 points. Automating dependency updates would lift Production Readiness itself, worth about 4 points. Raising Production Readiness to 62 would lift the score to about 69.

Twelve pipeline tools are referenced by a changeable name, so the build pipeline can be tampered with. Two pipeline steps run downloads nobody checks, and one known security hole in a package the code depends on can be used by attackers. Pinning each tool to an exact version, checking each download against a checksum and updating the vulnerable packages would close these risks. Limiting each secret to its own step would fix the secret exposed to more of the pipeline than needed, and correcting the flagged pipeline settings would deal with the weakness in the build pipeline's configuration.

The product code is 30,746 lines, about €46,000 to rebuild.

Code Health 85 Adequate, capped by Cognitive Complexity Architecture 98 ★ Exemplary Maturity 68 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 61 Adequate Security and Compliance 69 Adequate, capped by Supply-chain Provenance & Signing Performance 100 ★ Exemplary

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

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.

Production Readiness 61 · counts for 46%Maturity 68 · counts for 25%Security and Compliance 69 · counts for 14%Code Health 85 · counts for 8%Architecture 98 · counts for 4%Performance 100 · counts for 2%

If Production Readiness rose from 61 to 62, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 68 to about 69.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Product code 84%Tests 16%

Rebuild cost: about €46,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€15,000 to €77,000, for 255 to 809 hours of work, about 0.3 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×1.0 at a score of 68. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Medium: 30,746 lines of product code
What it is not	Not a quotation: nobody has offered to build it for that. Not a valuation: it says nothing about what the business is worth. Not a certified figure: no professional has signed it as one.

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

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.

Raises the score by about 3 points · Low effort · ADR Quality

Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.

Raises the score by about 4 points · Medium effort · Security & performance tooling

Record your significant design decisions.

Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.

Raises the score by about 3 points · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

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

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €46,000 to build again, about 0.3 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 61 (Adequate). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.

Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts

What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 3 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 ADR Quality findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

What hard-to-read code costs each year · Cost

Four dimensions measure how easy the code is to work in: two measure how tangled its logic is, one how much of it is copied, and one how well each part sticks to a single job. In this codebase they average 7.0 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and we estimate the extra work at 3% to 6% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 77,633 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 314,845 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 20 to 119.7 engineer-days a year, and it grows as more code changes.

How this is estimated: The number of changed lines is measured from the history of the code. The rest rests on two assumptions of our own: code scoring 8 out of 10 or more adds no extra work, and each point below 8 adds 2.5% to 5.6% to every change, never less than 2% to 5% and never more than 40% to 60% in all; and an engineer changes 150 to 400 lines in a day. The result is a range for planning, not a measurement.

Based on: Cyclomatic Complexity · Cognitive Complexity · Code Duplication · Cohesion (LCOM4) · the code's change history

What to do: Start with the files listed under Churn × Complexity Hotspots, which change often and are hard to read, because that is where the extra work is paid most often.

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways, which only happens where the projects form a dependency cycle. A graph without cycles has none.

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

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

368 modules, with 557 dependencies between them. One loop runs through 9 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 328 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 materialcraft_core.node_id	2 materialcraft_core.pattern_node_kind	3 materialcraft_core.value	4 materialcraft_eval.cache	6 materialcraft_geom.mesh	7 materialcraft_image	8 materialcraft_nodes.node_definition	9 materialcraft_nodes.port_kind	10 materialcraft_ui_egui.graph.graph_camera	11 materialcraft_core.connection	12 materialcraft_core.function_graph	13 materialcraft_core.node	14 materialcraft_core.pattern_graph	15 materialcraft_eval.cooked	16 materialcraft_eval.options	17 materialcraft_render.preview	19 materialcraft_ui_egui.graph.port_hit	20 materialcraft_ui_egui.state.ui_state	21 materialcraft_core.graph	22 materialcraft_nodes.cook_context	23 materialcraft_ui_egui.function.function_editor	24 materialcraft_ui_egui.graph.graph_view	25 materialcraft_ui_egui.pattern.pattern_editor	26 materialcraft_core.graph_index	27 materialcraft_core.package	29 materialcraft_engine.preview_cook	30 materialcraft_engine.snapshot	31 materialcraft_eval.prepared_graph	34 materialcraft_engine.session	37 materialcraft_engine.commands	38 materialcraft_ui_egui.material_craft_app	40 materialcraft_ui_egui.docking
1 materialcraft_core.node_id
2 materialcraft_core.pattern_node_kind
3 materialcraft_core.value
4 materialcraft_eval.cache
5 materialcraft_formats.material.manifest
6 materialcraft_geom.mesh
7 materialcraft_image
8 materialcraft_nodes.node_definition
9 materialcraft_nodes.port_kind
10 materialcraft_ui_egui.graph.graph_camera
11 materialcraft_core.connection	1
12 materialcraft_core.function_graph			1
13 materialcraft_core.node	1
14 materialcraft_core.pattern_graph		1
15 materialcraft_eval.cooked	1		1			1
16 materialcraft_eval.options	1
17 materialcraft_render.preview					2	3
18 materialcraft_ui_egui.function.function_canvas									1
19 materialcraft_ui_egui.graph.port_hit	1							1
20 materialcraft_ui_egui.state.ui_state									1																							1
21 materialcraft_core.graph	1		1							1	1	1
22 materialcraft_nodes.cook_context			1			2					1
23 materialcraft_ui_egui.function.function_editor	1		1						1		1																				1
24 materialcraft_ui_egui.graph.graph_view	1																1
25 materialcraft_ui_egui.pattern.pattern_editor	1		1										1																		1
26 materialcraft_core.graph_index	1									1		1							1
27 materialcraft_core.package																			1
28 materialcraft_nodes.node_definition_builder			1				1	1			1		1							1
29 materialcraft_engine.preview_cook				1										1	1										1
30 materialcraft_engine.snapshot	1																								1
31 materialcraft_eval.prepared_graph	1																		1					1	1
32 materialcraft_formats.sbs.sbs_reader			1							1		1							2						1
33 materialcraft_formats.sbs.sbs_writer												1							1						1
34 materialcraft_engine.session	2			1		1								1											1	1	1
35 materialcraft_eval.node_execution				1		1						1		1	1				1						1			1
36 materialcraft_automation.headless			2													1													1
37 materialcraft_engine.commands																													1
38 materialcraft_ui_egui.material_craft_app			1															1			1	1	1						1
39 materialcraft_engine.material_cmds																			1										1	1
40 materialcraft_ui_egui.docking			1									1																			2

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 85% · Adequate · gated by D2 ·

The Good

D3 · Rust God Classes 8.5 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.9 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0

The Bad

D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 5.7

The Ugly

D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 2.3

At a glance — Architecture · 98% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · Rust Coupling 8.3 D6 · Rust Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 9.9 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 68% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.3 D16 · Rust Bus Factor 10.0 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 10.0 D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Ugly

D20 · Rust ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 61% · Adequate ·

The Good

D9 · Rust Test Distribution 10.0 D12 · Rust Dependency Hygiene 9.6 D13 · Rust Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · Rust License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 10.0

The Bad

P2 · Repo Observability 5.5 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

The Ugly

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 4.0

At a glance — Security · 69% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

The Good

D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · Rust Dependency Vulnerabilities 8.0 D43 · Rust Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Rust Platform End-of-Life 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0

The Bad

D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 5.0

The Ugly

D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 2.5

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A05:2025 — Injection	16	High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	9	High / Critical

Roadmap

Top priorities: Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate; Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality; Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+3.5 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.	+3.8 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.	+3.0 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Make sure a person approves each release. The release job names an environment, but its approval rules live in the code host's settings, where we can't see them. Check that a reviewer must approve each release, or publish releases as drafts first, so a bad build can be stopped before anyone downloads it.	+2.7 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.	+2.7 pts	Medium	Release Hygiene
Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.	+2.3 pts	Medium	Observability
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.	+0.5 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED.	+0.5 pts	Low	Dependency Vulnerabilities

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 82 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 0% slop · 4% mixed · 96% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	3.3	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
crates/engine/src/session.rs	7.0	Near-clean	God Classes: TooManyMethods: Session
crates/geom/src/bvh.rs	7.1	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: Bvh::new (cyclomatic 23)
crates/formats/src/sbs/sbs_reader.rs	7.1	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: SbsReader::read_node (cyclomatic 19)
crates/geom/src/unwrap.rs	7.2	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: materialcraft_geom::unwrap::auto_unwrap (cyclomatic 34)
crates/nodes/src/ops.rs	7.2	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: materialcraft_nodes::ops::blend_channel (cyclomatic 23)
crates/ui-egui/src/view3d.rs	7.2	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: materialcraft_ui_egui::view3d::menus (cyclomatic 21)
crates/ui-egui/src/property/node.rs	7.2	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: materialcraft_ui_egui::property::node::base_params (cyclomatic 20)
crates/ui-egui/src/windows.rs	7.2	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: materialcraft_ui_egui::windows::export (cyclomatic 18)
crates/formats/src/sbs/sbs_writer.rs	7.2	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: SbsWriter::write_graph (cyclomatic 16)
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
crates/ui-egui/src/graph/input.rs	7.4	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::input::handle (cyclomatic 74)

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 17

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 — 176

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 — 12

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

Could not be resolved — 23

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

Methodology & how to trust this report

This survey 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. All 47 evaluated dimensions are computed by tools and static analysis; no language model sets or judges any of them. Overall confidence is 0.9, the weighted average across measured dimensions.

Every figure here is one of two 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. 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.

What we checked — 47 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D12D13D14D15D16D17D19D20D26D28D29D30D34D35D36D43D44AX10AX3AX4AX9M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6PF3X1X14X15X21X27X28X29X30

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, 192 of 205 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 or a scanner, 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	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Canine Code Analyzer duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a1b3c9-db06-7b3d-9d3c-010fd170e0cc.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — We 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 — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.rs) and this repository declares a Cargo test suite (repository root, 101 test files), but it was not re-run: its build outgrew the 6 GB scratch ceiling (6.023 GB measured) and was stopped; its suite was not run. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D19 Documentation Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — We measured this, but not all of it. What we did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Each ecosystem's manifests (what makes a folder runnable or a published package) need their own proof before D19 judges its units. Until then those folders' READMEs are judged only as documents (boilerplate, structure), never counted as complete.
D21 Naming Consistency — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D21's deterministic naming rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. Until then its declarations carry no naming verdict this run — this says nothing about whether its names are consistent.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22's deterministic call-shape rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. This says nothing about whether that surface is consistent.
D24 Comment Value — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Subject: 1 markup document(s) — HTML, Razor, JSX, Vue, Svelte or server templates. The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, a Dockerfile, an npm dev script, a web service's own toolchain entry point (cargo, go, dotnet, Python, Spring Boot), or an Android app's own Gradle wrapper (run on an emulator); an Apple or Flutter app needs a host it lacks. None applied, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. We then boot it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
M4 Documentation accuracy — measured, with a gap in what it reached — We measured this, but not all of it. What we did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. M4 checks only the claim kinds adjudicated at or above 95 % precision: links and versions (PREREGISTRATION version 9), and artefact counts an order of magnitude off. Paths, command arguments, installs, environment variables, settings, projects, packages, routes, cd targets, infrastructure products and removed modules are read but not checked, and none of them is reported or counted.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java, TypeScript/JavaScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby and Python source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby or Python was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart or Ruby was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby, Scala, Dart, Swift, Erlang, Go and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby, Scala, Dart, Swift, Erlang, Go, JavaScript or TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — We could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax and MSBuild project configuration, TypeScript source and its tsconfig files, Java source and its package and module declarations, PHP source and its PHPStan and Psalm configuration, Dart source and its pubspec language version, Ruby source and its Sorbet and Steep configuration, Scala source and its build's explicit-nulls, WartRemover and Scalafix settings, and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no TypeScript was found, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality publishes two things only: a runnable or packaged unit with no example, and a multi-project root README that maps none of its parts. It does not judge clarity, and its other checks (overview, licence, boilerplate, structure, empty sections, XML-doc coverage) are withheld after adjudication: their candidates are counted in the card's gaps, not shown as rows. A false statement in a document is M4's; units are .NET projects only.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality checks the structure of the decision records present: it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and it does not judge how well a record argues its case. Records in a language the section lexicon does not cover are not evaluated.
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.
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: Documentation accuracy checks links, versions and artefact counts against the tree: other claims (paths, commands, settings, routes) are read but not checked, and it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity5.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

45 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::input::handle at 74. A further 7 function(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 materialcraft_ui_egui::function::port_label::port_label at 22 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 6 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: crates/ui-egui/src/function/port_label.rs (materialcraft_ui_egui::function::port_label::port_label at 22), crates/nodes/src/function/catalog.rs (materialcraft_nodes::function::catalog::default_value at 19), crates/automation/src/rpc.rs (Headless::handle at 16), crates/engine/src/node_cmds.rs (materialcraft_engine::node_cmds::base at 16), crates/formats/src/sbs/sbs_value.rs (materialcraft_formats::sbs::sbs_value::to_param_value at 16), and 1 more not listed here. They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::input::handle (cyclomatic 74) · ×22crates/ui-egui/src/graph/input.rs:9

materialcraft_nodes::function::arithmetic::evaluate (cyclomatic 45) · ×8crates/nodes/src/function/arithmetic.rs:4

SbsWriter::write_graph (cyclomatic 16) · ×2crates/formats/src/sbs/sbs_writer.rs:63

materialcraft_geom::unwrap::auto_unwrap (cyclomatic 34)crates/geom/src/unwrap.rs:74

materialcraft_eval::node_execution::cook_node (cyclomatic 27)crates/eval/src/node_execution.rs:27

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

What to do

Bring the 2 bodies over 60 down to 60 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::input::handle (cyclomatic 74), materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::canvas::canvas (cyclomatic 62). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 2 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 5.7 to about 6.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 60; a cleaner split scores higher.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity2.3 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

88 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::canvas::canvas at 115.

materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::canvas::canvas (cognitive 115) · ×34crates/ui-egui/src/graph/canvas.rs:43

materialcraft_nodes::pattern::evaluation::cook (cognitive 74) · ×12crates/nodes/src/pattern/evaluation.rs:10

materialcraft_formats::mesh::gltf (cognitive 33) · ×5crates/formats/src/mesh.rs:115

materialcraft_engine::view_cmds::view3d (cognitive 27) · ×5crates/engine/src/view_cmds.rs:89

Bvh::new (cognitive 43) · ×4crates/geom/src/bvh.rs:83

+ 18 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 7 bodies over 60 down to 60 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::canvas::canvas (cognitive 115), materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::input::handle (cognitive 110), materialcraft_ui_egui::function::render::paint (cognitive 81). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 7 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 2.3 to about 4.1/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 60; a cleaner split scores higher.
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 Classes8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

FunctionTooLong: materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::canvas::canvas · ×9crates/ui-egui/src/graph/canvas.rs:43

TooManyMethods: Sessioncrates/engine/src/session.rs:121

What to do

Resolve the 9 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with canvas.rs, input.rs, render.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with session.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.9 / 10Stronggated by 7 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

7 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2crates/eval/src/cache_key.rs:45

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×2apps/materialcraft/src/control_server.rs:75

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2)crates/ui-egui/src/theme.rs:206

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2)crates/geom/src/bvh.rs:361

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2)crates/ui-egui/src/function/context_menu.rs:34

What to do

Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with cache_key.rs, compile.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with control_server.rs, widgets.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with theme.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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 · Coupling8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.

Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

14 production modules (Cargo), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 3 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 13 of the 14 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).

Off the main sequence: materialcraft-core · ×3

What to do

Resolve the 3 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.

Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.

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

0 of 46 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.

Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.

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

395 test methods: 258 unit, 137 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 395 `#[test]` function(s) across 101 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 36 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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene~~9.9~~ 9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, not deprecated, and not bloated. Known vulnerabilities are D30's.

Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (capped-linear for deprecation, prerelease and outdated) per KLoC. Known-vulnerable packages are D30's and are not charged here (rubric-2026.11.2). Exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 97% · ceiling Verified

2 outdated, 0 yanked direct Cargo dependencies. 30 of 31 direct crates were graded against crates.io (0 not published there, 1 not resolved by a committed REDACTED). 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: flate2 · ×2

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D14 · License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.

Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.

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

0 of 510 shipped crate(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from crates.io over the crates a consumer compiles — this repository's REDACTED closed over its manifests' `[dependencies]` and `[build-dependencies]`. Crates it asks for ONLY under `[dev-dependencies]` are excluded: they are not compiled by anything that depends on this repository. A further 13 crate(s) in the closure resolve from git, a path or a private registry and publish no licence this pass can read; they are outside this verdict. This repository publishes itself under MIT OR Apache-2.0, which is its own choice and is not judged here.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.3 / 10Stronggated by 17 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Top hotspots: crates/ui-egui/src/graph/canvas.rs (18×62=1116); crates/ui-egui/src/windows.rs (21×18=378); crates/ui-egui/src/view2d.rs (12×29=348) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: crates/image/src/lib.rs (4 of 5 changes were fixes); crates/automation/src/security.rs (3 of 5 changes were fixes)

Hotspot: crates/ui-egui/src/graph/canvas.rs · ×15crates/ui-egui/src/graph/canvas.rs:43

Repeated repair: crates/image/src/lib.rs · ×2crates/image/src/lib.rs:210

What to do

Resolve the 15 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with canvas.rs, windows.rs, view2d.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with lib.rs, security.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author. Counted over 142 of the 396 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.

Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.

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

0 deducted task-comment markers across 30746 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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

1 of 1 documentation facets pass in full. 14 document(s) read across 1 unit(s).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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: Every ADR read by its section structure: nine located rules (a missing Decision, Context or Consequences section, a stale status, two records deciding the same question, a dangling supersede link, a number-only title, a single option, no named cost, no status where the log uses one, no enforcement field where the log adopted one), each a fixed deduction from 10; the score is the mean over evaluated records. Deterministic, no model. Advisory.

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 of 15 build units (Cargo) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

16 finding(s): 0 critical, 16 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 12 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 4 file(s) — `crates/engine/src/file_cmds.rs` (lines 161–332), `crates/engine/src/function_graph_target.rs` (lines 26–79), `packaging/linux/AppRun` (line 29), `REDACTED` (line 40, line 74) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. 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

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 7 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 (7 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 5 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 (5 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities8.0 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

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. Advisory since rubric-2026.11.2 (CAI decision 0006): every row is a match against a vulnerability database that changes daily, so the reading is shown and never moves a scored dimension, lens or the headline.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 finding(s): 1 critical, 0 high, 4 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 4 Medium advisory (unmaintained) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 142 of the 396 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.9 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: session.rs↔view3d.rs 60%

Change coupling: session.rs ↔ view3d.rscrates/engine/src/session.rs:1

What to do

Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with session.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing2.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D43 · Malicious Dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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. Reported 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. Advisory since rubric-2026.11.2 (CAI decision 0006): the malicious-package feed is a database that changes daily, so the reading is shown and never moves a scored dimension, lens or the headline.

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

No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 0 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.

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

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.

Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.

Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.

What to do

The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).

Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX4 · Dependency direction10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.

Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX9 · CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.

Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.

Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a README to the 14 of 14 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

What to do

Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the project's current-state documentation describes the code that exists.

Method: Every current-state document's checkable claims looked up in the tree (links, versions, and artefact counts an order of magnitude off), plus two README checks: an advertised infrastructure product with no footprint, and a module the CHANGELOG records as removed. Deterministic, no model. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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's code 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 · Observability5.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: structured-logging frameworks (Serilog, NLog), OpenTelemetry, and health-check endpoint patterns. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Only 3/6 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `apps/materialcraft-cli`, `crates/automation`, `xtask`.

What to do

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry with tracing-opentelemetry) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your axum/actix router) for operability.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

Make sure a person approves each release. The release job names an environment, but its approval rules live in the code host's settings, where we can't see them. Check that a reviewer must approve each release, or publish releases as drafts first, so a bad build can be stopped before anyone downloads it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

What to do

Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from each language's code model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	85%	Adequate — gated by D2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	98%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	68%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	61%	Adequate	Largest drag on the score — prioritise here.
Security	69%	Adequate — gated by D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.

Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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.

Not evidenced — 1 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 70 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — Frontend below the scale floor (16 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC2 Forms & labels — Frontend below the scale floor (16 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC3 Page structure — Frontend below the scale floor (16 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — Frontend below the scale floor (16 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC5 ARIA correctness — Frontend below the scale floor (16 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — Frontend below the scale floor (16 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC7 A11y enforcement — Frontend below the scale floor (16 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: Rust with no dependency-injection crate has no container to hand one lifetime's instance to another — every value is owned by the code that builds it, and the borrow checker rejects a longer-lived value keeping a borrow of a shorter-lived one.
AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: Rust's compiler refuses unsynchronised shared mutation — a value shared across threads must be Sync — so the race this check looks for cannot be written.
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — this repository starts no server another machine can reach (no actix-web HttpServer, axum::serve, Rocket launch, warp::serve, poem or salvo Server, tonic Server::builder, hyper or tiny_http server outside examples and tests, none bound beyond loopback). Access control is therefore N/A here — a crate is authorized by the application that serves it, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no sensitive data whose changes an audit trail would record. If it does (through a store configured outside this repository, for instance), the trail belongs to wherever that data is stored.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
D10 Test Quality — ~5983 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .rs suite was found but not re-run
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D21 Naming Consistency — Naming consistency is measured on C# and TypeScript only; Rust not measured.
D22 Internal API Consistency — API consistency is measured on C# only; the exposed Rust surface was not measured.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ sibling projects each declaring an entity of their own or taking another project's integration events. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — D24 reads C#, Visual Basic, TypeScript and JavaScript comments only — this repository's production source is .rs, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.rs), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
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 only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (6 value object(s))
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Rust source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
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 scored: this check counted allocation-aware idioms (Span, pools, stackalloc) per line, which describes what kind of code a repository is rather than whether it has an allocation problem, so it was withdrawn. Nothing here is a finding about your code.
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface: 391 Rust file(s) were read for weak hashes and ciphers, key material fixed in the source, disabled TLS certificate validation and obsolete TLS versions, and none was found. This repository serves no HTTP of its own — no HTTP-server crate (actix-web, axum, Rocket, warp, poem, tide, salvo, tonic, a hyper server, …) among its Cargo manifests' run-time dependencies, and no server started in its production source — so HTTPS enforcement, HSTS, cookie flags and input validation are N/A here, as they are for a C# library or worker. If this codebase starts serving HTTP, the dimension reactivates automatically.
X12 Unreachable branch — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X13 Undrained process stream — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Rust was read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller — a Rust request takes no token: a future is cancelled by dropping it, from outside the call (select!, a timeout, an aborted task), and reqwest, hyper and tonic take none
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X25 Inert configuration knob — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — Not applicable: this check looks for a collection written by a callback on one thread while the body waiting on it touches it on another, and in this repository's languages no collection is reachable from two threads at once. Rust's compiler refuses the unsynchronised version: a collection shared between a callback's thread and the waiting body must be `Sync`, which a `Vec`, `VecDeque` or `HashMap` is only behind a `Mutex`/`RwLock`, so the race this check looks for cannot be written in safe Rust. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — This check asks whether log calls keep a message's values apart from its text, which needs a logger that can carry them as fields. This repository's Rust was read, and it logs through none: the `log` crate's macros take one finished message (as log4net does in C#; its `kv` values are an opt-in its backends mostly drop), `println!`/`eprintln!` are not loggers, or it makes no log call outside its tests and examples at all. Calls through `tracing` (`tracing::info!`, or `info!` imported from it) would be judged.
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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 — 17 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×1

REDACTED

Serious — 176 finding(s)

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · materialcraft_ui_egui · ×34

materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::canvas::canvas (cognitive 115) crates/ui-egui/src/graph/canvas.rs:43 — materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::canvas::canvas has cognitive complexity 115 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 49 (90 pts), boolean chains 10, match/switch 5 (8 pts), loops 7 (nesting depth added 44). 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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::input::handle (cognitive 110) crates/ui-egui/src/graph/input.rs:9 — materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::input::handle has cognitive complexity 110 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 40 (76 pts), boolean chains 21, match/switch 7 (12 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 41). 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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::function::render::paint (cognitive 81) crates/ui-egui/src/function/render.rs:10 — materialcraft_ui_egui::function::render::paint has cognitive complexity 81 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 29 (60 pts), boolean chains 11, loops 5 (10 pts) (nesting depth added 36). 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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::property::parameter::param_row (cognitive 69) crates/ui-egui/src/property/parameter.rs:18 — materialcraft_ui_egui::property::parameter::param_row has cognitive complexity 69 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 28 (56 pts), loops 5 (10 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 33). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_ui_egui::explorer::show (cognitive 57) crates/ui-egui/src/explorer.rs:13 — materialcraft_ui_egui::explorer::show has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (43 pts), loops 5 (10 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 24). 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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::library::items (cognitive 52) crates/ui-egui/src/library.rs:141 — materialcraft_ui_egui::library::items has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (46 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 26). 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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::view2d::show (cognitive 45) crates/ui-egui/src/view2d.rs:55 — materialcraft_ui_egui::view2d::show has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 28 (37 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 12). 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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::pattern::input::handle (cognitive 41) crates/ui-egui/src/pattern/input.rs:7 — materialcraft_ui_egui::pattern::input::handle has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (29 pts), match/switch 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 4 (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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::function::input::handle (cognitive 40) crates/ui-egui/src/function/input.rs:7 — materialcraft_ui_egui::function::input::handle has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (27 pts), boolean chains 9, match/switch 3 (4 pts) (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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::toolbar::show (cognitive 39) crates/ui-egui/src/graph/toolbar.rs:7 — materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::toolbar::show has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (34 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (2 pts) (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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::pattern::properties::show (cognitive 38) crates/ui-egui/src/pattern/properties.rs:15 — materialcraft_ui_egui::pattern::properties::show has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (34 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 23). 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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::property::graph::show (cognitive 31) crates/ui-egui/src/property/graph.rs:25 — materialcraft_ui_egui::property::graph::show has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (22 pts), loops 8, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_ui_egui::property::node::base_params (cognitive 28) crates/ui-egui/src/property/node.rs:73 — materialcraft_ui_egui::property::node::base_params has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), loops 3, 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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::control::handle (cognitive 27) crates/ui-egui/src/control.rs:228 — materialcraft_ui_egui::control::handle has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), match/switch 6 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 13). 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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::levels_editor::show (cognitive 27) crates/ui-egui/src/levels_editor.rs:91 — materialcraft_ui_egui::levels_editor::show has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (17 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_ui_egui::property::gradient::gradient_editor (cognitive 26) crates/ui-egui/src/property/gradient.rs:6 — materialcraft_ui_egui::property::gradient::gradient_editor has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (17 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::search::show (cognitive 25) crates/ui-egui/src/graph/search.rs:29 — materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::search::show has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (19 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_ui_egui::cook::drive (cognitive 24) crates/ui-egui/src/cook.rs:57 — materialcraft_ui_egui::cook::drive has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (16 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::property::curve::curve_editor (cognitive 23) crates/ui-egui/src/property/curve.rs:6 — materialcraft_ui_egui::property::curve::curve_editor has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (16 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 2 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_ui_egui::view3d::menus (cognitive 23) crates/ui-egui/src/view3d.rs:104 — materialcraft_ui_egui::view3d::menus has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (18 pts), loops 4, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
materialcraft_ui_egui::view3d::show (cognitive 23) crates/ui-egui/src/view3d.rs:211 — materialcraft_ui_egui::view3d::show has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (20 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::add_node_menu::show (cognitive 22) crates/ui-egui/src/graph/add_node_menu.rs:5 — materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::add_node_menu::show has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_ui_egui::pattern::canvas::paint (cognitive 22) crates/ui-egui/src/pattern/canvas.rs:47 — materialcraft_ui_egui::pattern::canvas::paint has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), loops 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_ui_egui::windows::export (cognitive 22) crates/ui-egui/src/windows.rs:169 — materialcraft_ui_egui::windows::export has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), loops 3, boolean chains 2, match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_ui_egui::function::canvas::canvas (cognitive 18) crates/ui-egui/src/function/canvas.rs:7 — materialcraft_ui_egui::function::canvas::canvas has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
+ 9 more in this group — see findings.md.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · materialcraft_ui_egui · ×22

materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::input::handle (cyclomatic 74) crates/ui-egui/src/graph/input.rs:9 — materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::input::handle has cyclomatic complexity 74 (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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::canvas::canvas (cyclomatic 62) crates/ui-egui/src/graph/canvas.rs:43 — materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::canvas::canvas has cyclomatic complexity 62 (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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::property::parameter::param_row (cyclomatic 46) crates/ui-egui/src/property/parameter.rs:18 — materialcraft_ui_egui::property::parameter::param_row has cyclomatic complexity 46 (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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::function::render::paint (cyclomatic 40) crates/ui-egui/src/function/render.rs:10 — materialcraft_ui_egui::function::render::paint has cyclomatic complexity 40 (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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::explorer::show (cyclomatic 36) crates/ui-egui/src/explorer.rs:13 — materialcraft_ui_egui::explorer::show has cyclomatic complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
materialcraft_ui_egui::function::input::handle (cyclomatic 33) crates/ui-egui/src/function/input.rs:7 — materialcraft_ui_egui::function::input::handle has cyclomatic complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
materialcraft_ui_egui::pattern::input::handle (cyclomatic 29) crates/ui-egui/src/pattern/input.rs:7 — materialcraft_ui_egui::pattern::input::handle 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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::view2d::show (cyclomatic 29) crates/ui-egui/src/view2d.rs:55 — materialcraft_ui_egui::view2d::show has cyclomatic complexity 29 (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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::control::handle (cyclomatic 24) crates/ui-egui/src/control.rs:228 — materialcraft_ui_egui::control::handle has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::toolbar::show (cyclomatic 23) crates/ui-egui/src/graph/toolbar.rs:7 — materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::toolbar::show has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
materialcraft_ui_egui::menus::invoke (cyclomatic 23) crates/ui-egui/src/menus.rs:124 — materialcraft_ui_egui::menus::invoke has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
materialcraft_ui_egui::property::graph::show (cyclomatic 23) crates/ui-egui/src/property/graph.rs:25 — materialcraft_ui_egui::property::graph::show has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::search::show (cyclomatic 21) crates/ui-egui/src/graph/search.rs:29 — materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::search::show has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
materialcraft_ui_egui::view3d::menus (cyclomatic 21) crates/ui-egui/src/view3d.rs:104 — materialcraft_ui_egui::view3d::menus has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::property::node::base_params (cyclomatic 20) crates/ui-egui/src/property/node.rs:73 — materialcraft_ui_egui::property::node::base_params has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
materialcraft_ui_egui::property::gradient::gradient_editor (cyclomatic 19) crates/ui-egui/src/property/gradient.rs:6 — materialcraft_ui_egui::property::gradient::gradient_editor has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
materialcraft_ui_egui::library::items (cyclomatic 18) crates/ui-egui/src/library.rs:141 — materialcraft_ui_egui::library::items 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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::view3d::show (cyclomatic 18) crates/ui-egui/src/view3d.rs:211 — materialcraft_ui_egui::view3d::show 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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::windows::export (cyclomatic 18) crates/ui-egui/src/windows.rs:169 — materialcraft_ui_egui::windows::export 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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::property::curve::curve_editor (cyclomatic 17) crates/ui-egui/src/property/curve.rs:6 — materialcraft_ui_egui::property::curve::curve_editor 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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::cook::drive (cyclomatic 16) crates/ui-egui/src/cook.rs:57 — materialcraft_ui_egui::cook::drive 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.
materialcraft_ui_egui::property::node::show (cyclomatic 16) crates/ui-egui/src/property/node.rs:12 — materialcraft_ui_egui::property::node::show has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×15

Hotspot: crates/ui-egui/src/graph/canvas.rs crates/ui-egui/src/graph/canvas.rs:43 — crates/ui-egui/src/graph/canvas.rs changed 18 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 62 in materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::canvas::canvas at line 43. 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/ui-egui/src/graph/canvas.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: crates/ui-egui/src/windows.rs crates/ui-egui/src/windows.rs:169 — crates/ui-egui/src/windows.rs changed 21 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in materialcraft_ui_egui::windows::export at line 169. 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 16 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/ui-egui/src/windows.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: crates/ui-egui/src/view2d.rs crates/ui-egui/src/view2d.rs:55 — crates/ui-egui/src/view2d.rs changed 12 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 29 in materialcraft_ui_egui::view2d::show at line 55. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 8 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/ui-egui/src/view2d.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: crates/ui-egui/src/view3d.rs crates/ui-egui/src/view3d.rs:104 — crates/ui-egui/src/view3d.rs changed 14 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 21 in materialcraft_ui_egui::view3d::menus at line 104. 4 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/ui-egui/src/view3d.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: crates/ui-egui/src/explorer.rs crates/ui-egui/src/explorer.rs:13 — crates/ui-egui/src/explorer.rs changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 36 in materialcraft_ui_egui::explorer::show at line 13. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 5 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/ui-egui/src/explorer.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: crates/engine/src/view_cmds.rs crates/engine/src/view_cmds.rs:89 — crates/engine/src/view_cmds.rs changed 10 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 25 in materialcraft_engine::view_cmds::view3d at line 89. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 7 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/engine/src/view_cmds.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: crates/ui-egui/src/control.rs crates/ui-egui/src/control.rs:228 — crates/ui-egui/src/control.rs changed 9 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 24 in materialcraft_ui_egui::control::handle at line 228. 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/ui-egui/src/control.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: apps/materialcraft-cli/src/main.rs apps/materialcraft-cli/src/main.rs:168 — apps/materialcraft-cli/src/main.rs changed 10 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 21 in materialcraft_cli::run at line 168. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 7 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- apps/materialcraft-cli/src/main.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: crates/ui-egui/src/menus.rs crates/ui-egui/src/menus.rs:124 — crates/ui-egui/src/menus.rs changed 9 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 23 in materialcraft_ui_egui::menus::invoke at line 124. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 6 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/ui-egui/src/menus.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: crates/render/src/preview.rs crates/render/src/preview.rs:87 — crates/render/src/preview.rs changed 11 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in Scene::displaced at line 87. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 7 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/render/src/preview.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: crates/automation/src/rpc.rs crates/automation/src/rpc.rs:61 — crates/automation/src/rpc.rs changed 9 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in Headless::handle at line 61. 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/automation/src/rpc.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: apps/materialcraft/src/control_server.rs apps/materialcraft/src/control_server.rs:100 — apps/materialcraft/src/control_server.rs changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 19 in materialcraft::control_server::serve at line 100. 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- apps/materialcraft/src/control_server.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: crates/ui-egui/src/cook.rs crates/ui-egui/src/cook.rs:57 — crates/ui-egui/src/cook.rs changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in materialcraft_ui_egui::cook::drive at line 57. 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/ui-egui/src/cook.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: crates/ui-egui/src/library.rs crates/ui-egui/src/library.rs:141 — crates/ui-egui/src/library.rs changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in materialcraft_ui_egui::library::items at line 141. 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/ui-egui/src/library.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: crates/core/src/value.rs crates/core/src/value.rs:103 — crates/core/src/value.rs changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 23 in Value::coerce_json at line 103. 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/core/src/value.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · materialcraft_nodes · ×12

materialcraft_nodes::pattern::evaluation::cook (cognitive 74) crates/nodes/src/pattern/evaluation.rs:10 — materialcraft_nodes::pattern::evaluation::cook has cognitive complexity 74 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (51 pts), loops 6 (13 pts), match/switch 3 (9 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 44). 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.
materialcraft_nodes::pattern::raster::render (cognitive 64) crates/nodes/src/pattern/raster.rs:9 — materialcraft_nodes::pattern::raster::render has cognitive complexity 64 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (42 pts), loops 4 (10 pts), match/switch 2 (10 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 36). 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.
materialcraft_nodes::function::vector::evaluate (cognitive 50) crates/nodes/src/function/vector.rs:4 — materialcraft_nodes::function::vector::evaluate has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (34 pts), loops 5 (14 pts), boolean chains 2 (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.
materialcraft_nodes::function::operation::evaluate (cognitive 34) crates/nodes/src/function/operation.rs:9 — materialcraft_nodes::function::operation::evaluate has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (18 pts), match/switch 6 (10 pts), boolean chains 6 (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.
materialcraft_nodes::ops::blend_channel (cognitive 27) crates/nodes/src/ops.rs:271 — materialcraft_nodes::ops::blend_channel has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (26 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 10). 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.
materialcraft_nodes::ops::distance_transform (cognitive 24) crates/nodes/src/ops.rs:148 — materialcraft_nodes::ops::distance_transform has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (22 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
materialcraft_nodes::function::node_types::node_types (cognitive 23) crates/nodes/src/function/node_types.rs:6 — materialcraft_nodes::function::node_types::node_types has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (20 pts), loops 2 (3 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.
materialcraft_nodes::function::arithmetic::evaluate (cognitive 22) crates/nodes/src/function/arithmetic.rs:4 — materialcraft_nodes::function::arithmetic::evaluate has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_nodes::parameter::clamp_params (cognitive 20) crates/nodes/src/parameter.rs:13 — materialcraft_nodes::parameter::clamp_params has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_nodes::function::compile::compile (cognitive 19) crates/nodes/src/function/compile.rs:5 — materialcraft_nodes::function::compile::compile has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_nodes::ops::box_1d (cognitive 19) crates/nodes/src/ops.rs:54 — materialcraft_nodes::ops::box_1d has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (13 pts), loops 4 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 4). 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.
materialcraft_nodes::pattern::shape::coverage (cognitive 17) crates/nodes/src/pattern/shape.rs:1 — materialcraft_nodes::pattern::shape::coverage has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 5). 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.

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×9

FunctionTooLong: materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::canvas::canvas crates/ui-egui/src/graph/canvas.rs:43 — FunctionTooLong — materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::canvas::canvas runs 211 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 111 over it, 2.11× 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: materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::input::handle crates/ui-egui/src/graph/input.rs:9 — FunctionTooLong — materialcraft_ui_egui::graph::input::handle runs 162 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 62 over it, 1.62× 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: materialcraft_ui_egui::function::render::paint crates/ui-egui/src/function/render.rs:10 — FunctionTooLong — materialcraft_ui_egui::function::render::paint runs 154 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 54 over it, 1.54× 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: materialcraft_ui_egui::property::parameter::param_row crates/ui-egui/src/property/parameter.rs:18 — FunctionTooLong — materialcraft_ui_egui::property::parameter::param_row runs 127 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 27 over it, 1.27× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: materialcraft_geom::unwrap::auto_unwrap crates/geom/src/unwrap.rs:74 — FunctionTooLong — materialcraft_geom::unwrap::auto_unwrap runs 126 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 26 over it, 1.26× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: materialcraft_ui_egui::view2d::show crates/ui-egui/src/view2d.rs:55 — FunctionTooLong — materialcraft_ui_egui::view2d::show runs 118 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 18 over it, 1.18× 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: materialcraft_nodes::pattern::evaluation::cook crates/nodes/src/pattern/evaluation.rs:10 — FunctionTooLong — materialcraft_nodes::pattern::evaluation::cook runs 110 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 10 over it, 1.10× 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: materialcraft_eval::node_execution::cook_node crates/eval/src/node_execution.rs:27 — FunctionTooLong — materialcraft_eval::node_execution::cook_node runs 103 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 3 over it, 1.03× 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: materialcraft_cli::run apps/materialcraft-cli/src/main.rs:168 — FunctionTooLong — materialcraft_cli::run runs 102 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 2 over it, 1.02× 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · materialcraft_nodes · ×8

materialcraft_nodes::function::arithmetic::evaluate (cyclomatic 45) crates/nodes/src/function/arithmetic.rs:4 — materialcraft_nodes::function::arithmetic::evaluate has cyclomatic complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
materialcraft_nodes::function::operation::evaluate (cyclomatic 37) crates/nodes/src/function/operation.rs:9 — materialcraft_nodes::function::operation::evaluate has cyclomatic complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
materialcraft_nodes::pattern::evaluation::cook (cyclomatic 31) crates/nodes/src/pattern/evaluation.rs:10 — materialcraft_nodes::pattern::evaluation::cook has cyclomatic complexity 31 (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.
materialcraft_nodes::pattern::shape::coverage (cyclomatic 24) crates/nodes/src/pattern/shape.rs:1 — materialcraft_nodes::pattern::shape::coverage has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
materialcraft_nodes::ops::blend_channel (cyclomatic 23) crates/nodes/src/ops.rs:271 — materialcraft_nodes::ops::blend_channel has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
materialcraft_nodes::pattern::raster::render (cyclomatic 23) crates/nodes/src/pattern/raster.rs:9 — materialcraft_nodes::pattern::raster::render has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
materialcraft_nodes::function::vector::evaluate (cyclomatic 22) crates/nodes/src/function/vector.rs:4 — materialcraft_nodes::function::vector::evaluate has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
materialcraft_nodes::parameter::clamp_params (cyclomatic 19) crates/nodes/src/parameter.rs:13 — materialcraft_nodes::parameter::clamp_params has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · materialcraft_formats · ×5

materialcraft_formats::mesh::gltf (cognitive 33) crates/formats/src/mesh.rs:115 — materialcraft_formats::mesh::gltf has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (16 pts), match/switch 3 (9 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 21). 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.
materialcraft_formats::sbs::connection::connect_all (cognitive 21) crates/formats/src/sbs/connection.rs:5 — materialcraft_formats::sbs::connection::connect_all has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (13 pts), loops 5 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_formats::sbs::output::output_type (cognitive 20) crates/formats/src/sbs/output.rs:3 — materialcraft_formats::sbs::output::output_type has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_formats::sbs::pattern_graph::read (cognitive 20) crates/formats/src/sbs/pattern_graph.rs:11 — materialcraft_formats::sbs::pattern_graph::read has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (9 pts), loops 4 (6 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_formats::image::encode (cognitive 16) crates/formats/src/image.rs:53 — materialcraft_formats::image::encode has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · materialcraft_engine · ×5

materialcraft_engine::view_cmds::view3d (cognitive 27) crates/engine/src/view_cmds.rs:89 — materialcraft_engine::view_cmds::view3d has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (21 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
materialcraft_engine::selection_commands::run (cognitive 19) crates/engine/src/selection_commands.rs:99 — materialcraft_engine::selection_commands::run has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_engine::graph_edit::selection::run (cognitive 17) crates/engine/src/graph_edit/selection.rs:17 — materialcraft_engine::graph_edit::selection::run has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (7 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_engine::graph_edit::selection::remove (cognitive 17) crates/engine/src/graph_edit/selection.rs:67 — materialcraft_engine::graph_edit::selection::remove has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (11 pts), loops 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_engine::graph_edit::selection::read (cognitive 17) crates/engine/src/graph_edit/selection.rs:98 — materialcraft_engine::graph_edit::selection::read has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (8 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 9). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Bvh · ×4

Bvh::new (cognitive 43) crates/geom/src/bvh.rs:83 — Bvh::new has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (23 pts), loops 8 (16 pts), boolean chains 4 (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.
Bvh::nearest (cognitive 29) crates/geom/src/bvh.rs:292 — Bvh::nearest has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (24 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 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.
Bvh::traverse (cognitive 26) crates/geom/src/bvh.rs:228 — Bvh::traverse has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (18 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Bvh::query_box (cognitive 21) crates/geom/src/bvh.rs:327 — Bvh::query_box has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · materialcraft_eval · ×4

materialcraft_eval::node_execution::cook_node (cognitive 36) crates/eval/src/node_execution.rs:27 — materialcraft_eval::node_execution::cook_node has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (25 pts), match/switch 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (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.
materialcraft_eval::parameter::resolve_parameters (cognitive 18) crates/eval/src/parameter.rs:5 — materialcraft_eval::parameter::resolve_parameters has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (8 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_eval::value_input_label::value_input_label (cognitive 17) crates/eval/src/value_input_label.rs:1 — materialcraft_eval::value_input_label::value_input_label has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_eval::cache_key::graph_tree_hash (cognitive 16) crates/eval/src/cache_key.rs:43 — materialcraft_eval::cache_key::graph_tree_hash has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (10 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SbsReader · ×4

SbsReader::read_node (cognitive 33) crates/formats/src/sbs/sbs_reader.rs:290 — SbsReader::read_node has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (22 pts), match/switch 4 (10 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 19). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
SbsReader::read_graph (cognitive 26) crates/formats/src/sbs/sbs_reader.rs:122 — SbsReader::read_graph has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (19 pts), loops 3 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
SbsReader::read_resource (cognitive 21) crates/formats/src/sbs/sbs_reader.rs:64 — SbsReader::read_resource has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
SbsReader::read_wires (cognitive 18) crates/formats/src/sbs/sbs_reader.rs:246 — SbsReader::read_wires has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (12 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unmaintained) · ×4

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · materialcraft_render · ×3

materialcraft_render::preview::render_cancellable (cognitive 28) crates/render/src/preview.rs:485 — materialcraft_render::preview::render_cancellable has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), match/switch 2 (9 pts), loops 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_render::preview::shade (cognitive 23) crates/render/src/preview.rs:374 — materialcraft_render::preview::shade has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (20 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, 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.
materialcraft_render::ibl::prefilter (cognitive 16) crates/render/src/ibl.rs:166 — materialcraft_render::ibl::prefilter has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (8 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×3

Off the main sequence: materialcraft-core — materialcraft-core: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 5 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: materialcraft-geom — materialcraft-geom: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: materialcraft-image — materialcraft-image: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 5 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SbsWriter · ×2

SbsWriter::write_graph (cyclomatic 16) crates/formats/src/sbs/sbs_writer.rs:63 — SbsWriter::write_graph 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.
SbsWriter::write_implementation (cyclomatic 16) crates/formats/src/sbs/sbs_writer.rs:236 — SbsWriter::write_implementation 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.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair · ×2

Repeated repair: crates/image/src/lib.rs crates/image/src/lib.rs:210 — crates/image/src/lib.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 8 (its worst body is Image::resize at line 210), 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: “Revert the batch rollback and restore prior main”; “Revert reviewed PR batch and cancel 0.1.3 preparation”; “fix(formats): choose sRGB or linear when reading bitmaps”; “fix(review): keep the open graph open after deleting an earlier one; clamp huge sample coordinates”. 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/image/src/lib.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: crates/automation/src/security.rs crates/automation/src/security.rs:102 — crates/automation/src/security.rs changed 5 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 4 (its worst body is materialcraft_automation::security::read_token_file at line 102), 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: “Revert the batch rollback and restore prior main”; “Revert reviewed PR batch and cancel 0.1.3 preparation”; “fix(control): random owner-only token file, constant-time compare, close on failed auth”. 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 2026-08-08..2026-11-06, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-08-08 14:59:31 +01:00' --until='2026-11-06 14:59:31 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/automation/src/security.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · materialcraft_geom · ×2

materialcraft_geom::unwrap::auto_unwrap (cognitive 67) crates/geom/src/unwrap.rs:74 — materialcraft_geom::unwrap::auto_unwrap has cognitive complexity 67 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (39 pts), loops 18 (27 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 33). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
materialcraft_geom::unwrap::pack (cognitive 18) crates/geom/src/unwrap.rs:253 — materialcraft_geom::unwrap::pack has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (15 pts), loops 3 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SbsWriter · ×2

SbsWriter::write_graph (cognitive 34) crates/formats/src/sbs/sbs_writer.rs:63 — SbsWriter::write_graph has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (20 pts), loops 7 (13 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
SbsWriter::write_implementation (cognitive 34) crates/formats/src/sbs/sbs_writer.rs:236 — SbsWriter::write_implementation has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (19 pts), match/switch 4 (9 pts), loops 2 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 22). 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) crates/eval/src/cache_key.rs:45 — crates/eval/src/cache_key.rs:45-51 | crates/eval/src/graph_instance.rs:11-17 — 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 (7 lines × 2) crates/nodes/src/function/compile.rs:22 — crates/nodes/src/function/compile.rs:22-28 | crates/nodes/src/function/node_types.rs:20-26 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) apps/materialcraft/src/control_server.rs:75 — apps/materialcraft/src/control_server.rs:75-79 | crates/automation/src/rpc.rs:208-212 — 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 (5 lines × 2) crates/ui-egui/src/widgets.rs:62 — crates/ui-egui/src/widgets.rs:62-66 | crates/ui-egui/src/widgets.rs:89-93 — 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · materialcraft_geom · ×1

materialcraft_geom::unwrap::auto_unwrap (cyclomatic 34) crates/geom/src/unwrap.rs:74 — materialcraft_geom::unwrap::auto_unwrap has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · materialcraft_eval · ×1

materialcraft_eval::node_execution::cook_node (cyclomatic 27) crates/eval/src/node_execution.rs:27 — materialcraft_eval::node_execution::cook_node 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · materialcraft_engine · ×1

materialcraft_engine::view_cmds::view3d (cyclomatic 25) crates/engine/src/view_cmds.rs:89 — materialcraft_engine::view_cmds::view3d has cyclomatic complexity 25 (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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Value · ×1

Value::coerce_json (cyclomatic 23) crates/core/src/value.rs:103 — Value::coerce_json has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Bvh · ×1

Bvh::new (cyclomatic 23) crates/geom/src/bvh.rs:83 — Bvh::new has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · materialcraft_cli · ×1

materialcraft_cli::run (cyclomatic 21) apps/materialcraft-cli/src/main.rs:168 — materialcraft_cli::run has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · materialcraft · ×1

materialcraft::control_server::serve (cyclomatic 19) apps/materialcraft/src/control_server.rs:100 — materialcraft::control_server::serve has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SbsReader · ×1

SbsReader::read_node (cyclomatic 19) crates/formats/src/sbs/sbs_reader.rs:290 — SbsReader::read_node has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · materialcraft_formats · ×1

materialcraft_formats::image::encode (cyclomatic 19) crates/formats/src/image.rs:53 — materialcraft_formats::image::encode has cyclomatic complexity 19 (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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Program · ×1

Program::run (cyclomatic 19) crates/nodes/src/function/program.rs:41 — Program::run has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · PatternEdit · ×1

PatternEdit::apply (cyclomatic 18) crates/engine/src/pattern_edit.rs:40 — PatternEdit::apply has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · FunctionEdit · ×1

FunctionEdit::apply (cyclomatic 17) crates/engine/src/function_edit.rs:35 — FunctionEdit::apply has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UvGBuffer · ×1

UvGBuffer::new (cyclomatic 17) crates/geom/src/gbuffer.rs:46 — UvGBuffer::new 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UvGBuffer · ×1

UvGBuffer::new (cognitive 36) crates/geom/src/gbuffer.rs:46 — UvGBuffer::new has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (25 pts), loops 5 (9 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PatternEdit · ×1

PatternEdit::apply (cognitive 32) crates/engine/src/pattern_edit.rs:40 — PatternEdit::apply has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (24 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 17). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · materialcraft · ×1

materialcraft::control_server::serve (cognitive 29) apps/materialcraft/src/control_server.rs:100 — materialcraft::control_server::serve has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FunctionEdit · ×1

FunctionEdit::apply (cognitive 26) crates/engine/src/function_edit.rs:35 — FunctionEdit::apply has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (20 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 13). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Scene · ×1

Scene::displaced (cognitive 25) crates/render/src/preview.rs:87 — Scene::displaced has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), loops 6 (10 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Program · ×1

Program::run (cognitive 24) crates/nodes/src/function/program.rs:41 — Program::run has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Mesh · ×1

Mesh::map_material_uvs_with (cognitive 23) crates/geom/src/mesh.rs:205 — Mesh::map_material_uvs_with has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), loops 6 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MaterialSource · ×1

MaterialSource::is_image (cognitive 21) crates/engine/src/material_source.rs:13 — MaterialSource::is_image has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · materialcraft_cli · ×1

materialcraft_cli::run (cognitive 20) apps/materialcraft-cli/src/main.rs:168 — materialcraft_cli::run has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 6 (11 pts), if/else 4 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CapsuleRaster · ×1

CapsuleRaster::new (cognitive 20) crates/nodes/src/raster/capsule_raster.rs:14 — CapsuleRaster::new has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (12 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PatternGraph · ×1

PatternGraph::validate (cognitive 18) crates/core/src/pattern_graph.rs:45 — PatternGraph::validate has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · xtask · ×1

xtask::layers::check (cognitive 18) xtask/src/layers.rs:79 — xtask::layers::check has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · materialcraft_automation · ×1

materialcraft_automation::workspace::relative_path (cognitive 16) crates/automation/src/workspace.rs:92 — materialcraft_automation::workspace::relative_path has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×1

TooManyMethods: Session crates/engine/src/session.rs:121 — TooManyMethods — 41 methods, declared across 3 files: src/session.rs (32), src/material_preview.rs (7), src/connection_commands.rs (2). The bar is 30 methods; this is 11 over it, 1.37× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1

Change coupling: session.rs ↔ view3d.rs crates/engine/src/session.rs:1 — `crates/engine/src/session.rs` and `crates/ui-egui/src/view3d.rs` 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) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `821c7172` Add DirectX normal-map interpretation to the 3D view; `8bdae115` Fixed Heightmap; `8f4dd5b6` feat: alpha in the 3D view; select, delete and reroute wires — run `git show` on any of them.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) crates/ui-egui/src/theme.rs:206 — crates/ui-egui/src/theme.rs:206-218 | crates/ui-egui/src/theme.rs:220-232 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) crates/geom/src/bvh.rs:361 — crates/geom/src/bvh.rs:361-368 | crates/geom/src/bvh.rs:371-378 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) crates/ui-egui/src/function/context_menu.rs:34 — crates/ui-egui/src/function/context_menu.rs:34-40 | crates/ui-egui/src/pattern/context_menu.rs:25-30 — 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.

Minor — 10 finding(s)

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×3

Duplicated predicate crates/ui-egui/src/function/render.rs:30 — `!editor.framed || app.ui.frame_all || frame_key` appears character-identically in 2 files — crates/ui-egui/src/function/render.rs, crates/ui-egui/src/pattern/canvas.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 crates/automation/src/headless.rs:110 — `!relative.is_empty() && !relative.contains(':') && !relative.starts_with('/')` appears character-identically in 2 files — crates/automation/src/headless.rs, crates/engine/src/file_cmds.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 crates/ui-egui/src/function/render.rs:32 — `frame_key && !editor.selection.is_empty()` appears character-identically in 2 files — crates/ui-egui/src/function/render.rs, crates/ui-egui/src/pattern/canvas.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.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 3/6 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `apps/materialcraft-cli`, `crates/automation`, `xtask`.

P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1

No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

Minor — 2 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×2

Outdated: flate2 — `flate2` is locked at 1.1.10 but 1.1.11 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1"` requirement declared in crates/formats/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p flate2` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: rmcp — `rmcp` is locked at 3.8.0 but 3.9.0 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"3.5"` requirement declared in crates/automation/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p rmcp` 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.

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/canine-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-26f61a4da8eb4be1888aaf88a92888e7/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	2	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/canine-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-26f61a4da8eb4be1888aaf88a92888e7/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	2	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/canine-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off --exclude .arrow --exclude .avro --exclude .csv --exclude .dat --exclude .db --exclude .feather --exclude .geojson --exclude .h5 --exclude .hdf5 --exclude .jsonl --exclude .log --exclude .ndjson --exclude .npy --exclude .npz --exclude .orc --exclude .parquet --exclude .pickle --exclude .pkl --exclude .psv --exclude .sqlite --exclude .sqlite3 --exclude .tfrecord --exclude .tsv --exclude .txt .	16	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	5	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a1b3c9-db06-7b3d-9d3c-010fd170e0cc · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 85% · Adequate · gated by D2 ·

At a glance — Architecture · 98% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 68% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 61% · Adequate ·

At a glance — Security · 69% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts