repowiserepowise
Sign in
1mukund/asbl-crm-api
OverviewDocsArchitectureKnowledge GraphFilesCode HealthRefactoring

People & History

CommitsContributorsDecisions
ChatPro
Stats
repowiserepowise
ExplorePricingDocs
Sign inIndex repoIndex your repo free
repowise1mukund/asbl-crm-api
AS
AS

1mukund / asbl-crm-api

typescriptmain53e213c22.0K linessynced 1mo ago

Code health

4.9out of 10Needs work

This codebase scores 4.9 out of 10 on defect risk, which we rate needs work. It also scores maintainability 6.4 and static performance risk 9.5 out of 10. The three are scored separately and never blended into one number. The files you change most are the weak spot: 15 of 78 files are git hotspots, and they average 2.0.

Full health report →
Score validation19/202.25× baselineOf the 20 lowest-health files, 19 were bug-fixed in the last 6 months — 2.25× the 42% baselineDead code64exportsUnused exports that nothing in the graph reaches
Lines of code
22.0K
Files
78
Symbols
615
Modules
29
Languages
4

Recent activity

All commits →

Commits

No commits indexed yet.

Decisions

  • Small delay to avoid Zoho rate limitsproposed
  • 1 minute gap between messages (avoid WhatsApp flag/block)proposed
  • ── 8. Patch HTML form submit (fallback) ──────────────────proposed
  • Tracking fills blanks — existing form values always take priorityproposed
  • ── Step 2: Send via Periskope, with pool-wide fallback on dead senders. ──proposed
  • Same dead-sender detector as prd_orchestrator. Periskope flags an offline WhatsApp server as 401 + "proposed

Needs attention

143 open
  • medium severity. ProposedSmall delay to avoid Zoho rate limitsAuto-proposed decision awaiting review
  • medium severity. Proposed1 minute gap between messages (avoid WhatsApp flag/block)Auto-proposed decision awaiting review
  • medium severity. Proposed── 8. Patch HTML form submit (fallback) ──────────────────Auto-proposed decision awaiting review
  • medium severity. ProposedTracking fills blanks — existing form values always take priorityAuto-proposed decision awaiting review
  • medium severity. Proposed── Step 2: Send via Periskope, with pool-wide fallback on dead senders. ──Auto-proposed decision awaiting review

Where the risk concentrates

All 15 hotspots →

Ranked by prior bug fixes and change frequency, mined from full git history rather than from the code alone.

FileChurnPrior fixesMaintainersCommits 90d
chat-history.tsapi98.4th382bus factor 1122
periskope-webhook.tsapi/relay96.7th21252
gemini_chat.tsapi/_utils95.1th112bus factor 123
followup.tsapi/cron93.4th72bus factor 130
inhouse-call.tsapi/relay91.8th71bus factor 113

Composition

Open the graph →
typescript 64%markdown 15%javascript 14%json 6%

Explore this codebase

  • Docs0 pages across 29 modules→
  • ChatAsk this codebase a question and get an answer with its sources→
  • Files78 files with per-file docs, health and history→
  • ArchitectureDependency graph, layers, and 7 entry points→
  • Code healthPer-file scores, 537 open findings, coverage and refactoring targets→
  • Knowledge graphEntities, communities, and the paths between them→
  • Change couplingFiles that keep changing together, mined from commit history→
  • CommitsChange-risk ranked history with agent provenance→
  • ContributorsBus factor, per-file maintainers, and the human/agent split→
  • StatsSize class, origin, lifetime churn, rhythm and records→
  • CostsWhat indexing this snapshot cost, by model and by run→