Code complexity analysis that runs where your code lives.

The problem this page helps clarify

The useful question is where Code complexity analysis changes the review loop: what enters the scan, who acts on a finding, and which evidence moves forward. Complexity, oversized files, duplication, and change shape that make a review harder to trust.

• Audience: Teams that need code-health signals tied to review effort rather than vanity scores.
• Focus: Complexity, oversized files, duplication, and change shape that make a review harder to trust.
• Review question: What does Code complexity analysis cover in practice?

Coverage and concrete signals

For Code complexity analysis, inspect the concrete scope below instead of relying on a category label. Concrete file-level findings, repeatable scan output, and trend context for deciding what to refactor.

• Focus: Complexity, oversized files, duplication, and change shape that make a review harder to trust.
• Workflow: Workflow: complexity · duplicate code · oversized files · trend history
• Coverage and concrete signals: complexity, duplicate code, oversized files, trend history

From local signal to shared gate.

Code complexity analysis: Use the smallest workflow that proves value. Each later step should reuse evidence the team already understands. Complexity, oversized files, duplication, and change shape that make a review harder to trust.

Copyradar scan . --quick
radar scan . --format sarif --fail-on high

Evidence to inspect before you trust the result.

Code complexity analysis: A useful result must be explainable to a developer and portable to the next review surface. Inspect the concrete evidence below before changing team policy. Concrete file-level findings, repeatable scan output, and trend context for deciding what to refactor.

• Workflow: complexity · duplicate code · oversized files · trend history
• Exact file location, rule context, severity, confidence, and remediation guidance.
• Terminal output, SARIF, JSON, or HTML artifacts generated from the same finding set.
• Source stays in the workspace or CI runner where the scan executes.

Good fit and limits

Use Code complexity analysis when Teams that need code-health signals tied to review effort rather than vanity scores. Keep the boundary explicit: Complexity signals identify review risk; they do not prove a defect or replace design review.

Run the local proof before adopting a shared gate.

• Good fit: Teams that need code-health signals tied to review effort rather than vanity scores.
• Not a fit / do not overreach: Complexity signals identify review risk; they do not prove a defect or replace design review.

Questions to verify before rollout

These questions keep the decision tied to observable evidence rather than a broad product promise.