Technical debt scanning that runs where your code lives.

See how Technical debt scanning fits local review, which evidence Code Radar produces, where coverage ends, and how trusted findings move into CI.

radar scan . --quick

What Technical debt scanning means here.

Code Radar uses Technical debt scanning to turn repository signals into file-level findings, severity, confidence, remediation guidance, and portable review evidence before a pull request is opened.

Evidence to inspect

Use “Technical debt scanning that runs where your code lives.” as the scope for this decision: verify the input, finding detail, workflow handoff, and product boundary before you install or buy.

CriterionEvidence to inspectBoundary
Input scopeSelected files, configuration, scan mode, and enabled rules.Only included paths and configured checks are evaluated.
Finding detailFile, line, rule ID, severity, explanation, and repair direction.Illustrative output is not a result from your repository.
Workflow handoffLocal result, report format, agent context, and optional CI signal.Enable exports or CI only when the workflow needs them.
Decision fitUse the same criteria on a real repository before choosing a plan or tool.No universal winner or guaranteed outcome is claimed.

Run this check locally

Coverage and concrete signals

Duplicate logic, dead-code signals, dependency cycles, oversized modules, and review-risk trends.

  • Audience: Maintainers deciding which structural debt should be fixed before it compounds.
  • Evidence to inspect before you trust the result.: Findings that name the affected structure, explain the review cost, and produce portable reports.
  • Boundary: Debt detection is a prioritization aid; teams still need ownership, context, and a deliberate refactor plan.
  • Workflow: duplicate code · dead code · dependency cycles · oversized files

From local signal to shared gate.

Technical debt scanning: Use the smallest workflow that proves value. Each later step should reuse evidence the team already understands. Findings that name the affected structure, explain the review cost, and produce portable reports.

StepCommand or actionDecision
1Run a quick local scanIs the signal useful?
2Inspect and repair findingsIs the fix specific and reproducible?
3Export portable evidenceDoes the reviewer need SARIF, JSON, or HTML?
4Promote the trusted threshold to CIWhich severity should block a pull request?
radar scan . --quick
radar scan . --format sarif --fail-on high

Validate the workflow on your own code.

Apply this page’s evidence to one real repository. For “Technical debt scanning that runs where your code lives.”, confirm which finding is produced, whether the proposed next step is reproducible, and where local scanning, reports, agents, or CI should stop or expand.