# QE Queen Summary Report -- wifi-densepose

**Date:** 2026-04-05  
**Fleet ID:** fleet-02558e91  
**Orchestrator:** QE Queen Coordinator (ADR-001)  
**Domains Activated:** test-generation, coverage-analysis, quality-assessment, security-compliance, defect-intelligence  

---

## 1. Project Scope and Quality Posture Overview

### 1.1 Codebase Dimensions

| Language / Layer | Files | Lines of Code | Purpose |
|------------------|-------|---------------|---------|
| Rust (.rs) | 379 | 153,139 | Core workspace -- 19 crates (16 in workspace, 3 excluded/auxiliary) |
| Python (.py) | 105 | 38,656 | v1 implementation -- API, services, sensing, hardware, middleware |
| C/H (firmware) | 48 | 9,445 | ESP32 CSI node firmware -- collectors, OTA, WASM runtime |
| TypeScript/TSX (mobile) | 48 | 7,571 | React Native mobile app -- screens, stores, services |
| JavaScript (UI) | ~117 | 25,798 | Web observatory UI, components, utilities |
| Markdown (docs) | ~79+ | 70,539 | 79 ADRs, user guides, research, witness logs |
| **Total** | **~776** | **~305,148** | |

### 1.2 Architecture Summary

The project implements WiFi-based human pose estimation using Channel State Information (CSI). It is structured as a multi-language, multi-platform system:

- **Rust workspace** (v0.3.0): 16 crates in workspace plus `wifi-densepose-wasm-edge` (excluded for `wasm32` target) and `ruv-neural` (auxiliary). Covers signal processing (RuvSense with 14 modules), neural inference (ONNX/PyTorch/Candle), mass casualty assessment (MAT), cross-viewpoint fusion (RuVector v2.0.4), hardware TDM protocol, and web APIs.
- **Python v1**: Original implementation with 12 source modules covering API endpoints, CSI extraction, pose services, sensing, database, and middleware.
- **ESP32 firmware**: C code for real WiFi CSI collection, edge processing, OTA updates, mmWave sensor integration, WASM runtime, and swarm bridging.
- **Mobile UI**: React Native app with pose visualization, MAT screens, vitals monitoring, and RSSI scanning.
- **Web observatory**: Three.js-based visualization for RF sensing, phase constellations, and subcarrier manifolds.

### 1.3 Governance and Process Maturity

| Indicator | Status | Details |
|-----------|--------|---------|
| Architecture Decision Records | Strong | 79 ADRs documented in `docs/adr/` |
| CI/CD pipelines | Strong | 8 GitHub Actions workflows (CI, CD, security scan, firmware CI, QEMU, desktop release, verify pipeline, submodules) |
| Security scanning | Strong | Dedicated `security-scan.yml` with Bandit, Semgrep, Safety; runs daily on schedule |
| Deterministic verification | Strong | SHA-256 proof pipeline (`archive/v1/data/proof/verify.py`) with witness bundles (ADR-028) |
| Code formatting | Moderate | Black/Flake8 enforced for Python in CI; no `rustfmt.toml` found for Rust |
| Type checking | Moderate | MyPy configured in CI for Python; Rust has native type safety |
| Dependency management | Strong | Workspace-level Cargo.toml with pinned versions; `requirements.txt` for Python |

---

## 2. Test Pyramid Health

### 2.1 Overall Test Inventory

| Test Layer | Rust | Python | Mobile (TS) | Firmware (C) | Total |
|------------|------|--------|-------------|--------------|-------|
| Unit tests | 2,618 `#[test]` | 322 functions / 15 files | 202 test cases / 25 files | 0 | **3,142** |
| Integration tests | 16 files / 7 crates | 132 functions / 11 files | 0 | 0 | **148+ functions** |
| E2E tests | 0 | 8 functions / 1 file | 0 | 0 | **8 functions** |
| Performance tests | 0 | 26 functions / 2 files | 0 | 0 | **26 functions** |
| Fuzz tests | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 files (harnesses) | **3 harnesses** |
| **Subtotal** | **~2,634** | **~488** | **~202** | **3** | **~3,327** |

### 2.2 Test Pyramid Shape Analysis

```
Ideal Pyramid          Actual Shape          Assessment
                                            
    /\                    /\                  
   /E2E\                / 8 \                E2E: CRITICALLY THIN
  /------\              /----\               
 / Integ. \            / 148  \              Integration: THIN
/----------\          /--------\             
/   Unit    \        /  3,142   \            Unit: HEALTHY base
--------------      --------------          
```

**Pyramid Ratio (unit : integration : e2e):**
- Actual: **394 : 19 : 1**
- Healthy target: **70 : 20 : 10** (percentage)
- Actual percentage: **95.3% : 4.5% : 0.2%**

**Verdict:** The pyramid is severely bottom-heavy. Unit tests are plentiful (good), but integration and E2E layers are dangerously thin relative to the project's complexity. For a multi-crate, multi-service system with hardware integration, the integration layer should be 3-4x larger, and E2E should be 10-20x larger.

### 2.3 Rust Test Distribution by Crate

| Crate | Source Lines | Test Count | Tests per 1K LOC | Integration Tests | Assessment |
|-------|-------------|------------|-------------------|-------------------|------------|
| wifi-densepose-wasm-edge | 28,888 | 643 | 22.3 | 3 files | Good |
| wifi-densepose-signal | 16,194 | 370 | 22.8 | 1 file | Good |
| ruv-neural | ~558 (test-only) | 364 | N/A | 1 file | Test-only crate |
| wifi-densepose-train | 10,562 | 299 | 28.3 | 6 files | Strong |
| wifi-densepose-sensing-server | 17,825 | 274 | 15.4 | 3 files | Moderate |
| wifi-densepose-mat | 19,572 | 159 | 8.1 | 1 file | Needs improvement |
| wifi-densepose-wifiscan | 5,779 | 150 | 26.0 | 0 | Unit only |
| wifi-densepose-hardware | 4,005 | 106 | 26.5 | 0 | Unit only |
| wifi-densepose-ruvector | 4,629 | 106 | 22.9 | 0 | Unit only |
| wifi-densepose-vitals | 1,863 | 52 | 27.9 | 0 | Unit only |
| wifi-densepose-desktop | 3,309 | 39 | 11.8 | 1 file | Thin |
| wifi-densepose-core | 2,596 | 28 | 10.8 | 0 | Thin for core crate |
| wifi-densepose-nn | 2,959 | 23 | 7.8 | 0 | Needs improvement |
| wifi-densepose-cli | 1,317 | 5 | 3.8 | 0 | Critically thin |
| wifi-densepose-wasm | 1,805 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | **ZERO tests** |
| wifi-densepose-api | 1 (stub) | 0 | N/A | 0 | Stub only |
| wifi-densepose-config | 1 (stub) | 0 | N/A | 0 | Stub only |
| wifi-densepose-db | 1 (stub) | 0 | N/A | 0 | Stub only |

### 2.4 Python Test Coverage by Module

| Source Module | Source Lines | Has Unit Tests | Has Integration Tests | Assessment |
|---------------|-------------|----------------|----------------------|------------|
| api (13 files) | 3,694 | No | Yes (test_api_endpoints, test_rate_limiting) | Partial |
| services (7 files) | 3,038 | No | Yes (test_inference_pipeline) | Partial |
| sensing (6 files) | 2,117 | Yes (test_sensing) | Yes (test_streaming_pipeline) | Moderate |
| tasks (3 files) | 1,977 | No | No | **ZERO coverage** |
| middleware (4 files) | 1,798 | No | No | **ZERO coverage** |
| database (5 files) | 1,715 | No | No | **ZERO coverage** |
| commands (3 files) | 1,161 | No | No | **ZERO coverage** |
| core (4 files) | 1,117 | No (tests focus on CSI extractor from hardware/) | No | **ZERO coverage** |
| config (3 files) | 923 | No | No | **ZERO coverage** |
| hardware (3 files) | 755 | Yes (test_csi_extractor, test_esp32_binary_parser) | Yes (test_hardware_integration) | Good |
| models (3 files) | 578 | No | No | **ZERO coverage** |
| testing (3 files) | 500 | No | No | **ZERO coverage** |

**Key finding:** Python unit tests concentrate heavily on CSI extraction and processing (the hardware layer). 11 of 12 source modules have zero dedicated unit test files. The 322 unit test functions map almost entirely to `hardware/csi_extractor.py` and related signal processing code.

### 2.5 Mobile UI Test Coverage

The mobile UI has 25 test files with 202 test cases, covering:
- **Stores:** poseStore (21), matStore (18), settingsStore (13) -- good state management coverage
- **Components:** SignalBar, GaugeArc, ConnectionBanner, SparklineChart, OccupancyGrid, StatusDot, HudOverlay -- 7 components tested
- **Hooks:** useServerReachability, useRssiScanner, usePoseStream -- 3 hooks tested
- **Services:** api (14), ws (7), simulation (10), rssi (6) -- good service layer coverage
- **Screens:** MAT (4), Live (4), Vitals (5), Zones (6), Settings (6) -- all main screens tested
- **Utils:** ringBuffer (20), urlValidator (13), colorMap (9) -- thorough utility testing

**Assessment:** Mobile testing is the strongest layer relative to its codebase size. Good breadth across stores, components, services, and screens.

### 2.6 Firmware Test Coverage

| Test Type | Count | Coverage |
|-----------|-------|----------|
| Fuzz harnesses | 3 | `fuzz_csi_serialize.c`, `fuzz_edge_enqueue.c`, `fuzz_nvs_config.c` |
| Unit tests | 0 | No structured unit testing framework |
| Integration tests | 0 | No automated hardware-in-the-loop tests |

**Assessment:** The firmware has fuzz testing (a positive for security-critical embedded code), but lacks structured unit tests. The 9,445 lines of C code for a safety-relevant embedded system (disaster survivor detection via MAT) warrant stronger test coverage.

---

## 3. Cross-Cutting Quality Concerns

### 3.1 Code Complexity and Maintainability

| Metric | Value | Threshold | Status |
|--------|-------|-----------|--------|
| AQE quality score | 37/100 | >70 | FAIL |
| Cyclomatic complexity (avg) | 24.09 | <15 | FAIL |
| Maintainability index | 24.35 | >50 | FAIL |
| Security score | 85/100 | >80 | PASS |

**Large file risk (>500 lines in Rust src/):**

| File | Lines | Risk |
|------|-------|------|
| `sensing-server/src/main.rs` | 4,846 | Monolith risk -- nearly 10x the 500-line guideline |
| `sensing-server/src/training_api.rs` | 1,946 | High complexity |
| `wasm/src/mat.rs` | 1,673 | Hard to test, 0 tests in crate |
| `train/src/metrics.rs` | 1,664 | Complex math, needs exhaustive testing |
| `signal/src/ruvsense/pose_tracker.rs` | 1,523 | Critical path, well-tested |
| `mat/src/integration/csi_receiver.rs` | 1,401 | Integration boundary |
| `mat/src/integration/hardware_adapter.rs` | 1,360 | Hardware boundary, audit needed |

24 Rust source files exceed 500 lines, violating the project's own `CLAUDE.md` guideline.

### 3.2 Error Handling Quality (Rust)

| Pattern | Count | Assessment |
|---------|-------|------------|
| `Result<>` returns | 450 | Good -- idiomatic error handling in use |
| `.unwrap()` calls | 720 | HIGH RISK -- 720 potential panic points in production code |
| `.expect()` calls | 35 | Acceptable -- provides context on failure |
| `panic!()` calls | 1 | Good -- minimal explicit panics |
| `unsafe` blocks | 340 | NEEDS AUDIT -- high count for an application-level project |

**Critical concern:** The 720 `.unwrap()` calls represent potential runtime panics. In a system processing real-time WiFi CSI data for pose estimation (and mass casualty assessment), an unwrap failure could crash the entire pipeline. Each call should be reviewed and converted to proper error propagation with `?` operator or explicit error handling.

The 340 `unsafe` blocks are high for a project that is not a systems-level library. These need a focused audit to verify memory safety invariants are upheld, especially in signal processing and hardware interaction code.

### 3.3 Security Posture

| Check | Result | Details |
|-------|--------|---------|
| Hardcoded secrets in Python | 0 found | Clean |
| SQL injection risk (f-string SQL) | 0 found | Clean -- likely using parameterized queries |
| Python `eval()` usage | 2 calls | Safe -- both are PyTorch `model.eval()` (inference mode), not Python eval |
| Firmware buffer overflow risk | 0 `strcpy`/`sprintf` | Clean -- uses safe string functions |
| CI security scanning | Active | Bandit, Semgrep, Safety in dedicated workflow, runs daily |
| Dependency scanning | Active | Safety checks in CI |

**Security assessment: GOOD.** The project follows secure coding practices. The dedicated security-scan workflow with daily scheduling is a strong indicator of security maturity. No critical vulnerabilities detected in static analysis patterns.

### 3.4 Documentation Quality

| Metric | Value | Assessment |
|--------|-------|------------|
| Rust `///` doc comments | 11,965 | Strong |
| Rust `//!` module docs | 3,512 | Strong |
| Rust `pub fn` with docs | 1,781 / 3,912 (45.5%) | Moderate -- 54.5% of public functions lack doc comments |
| Python functions with docstrings | ~543 / ~801 (67.8%) | Good |
| Python classes with docstrings | ~121 / ~150 (80.7%) | Strong |
| ADRs | 79 | Excellent governance |
| TODO/FIXME markers | 1 (Python), 0 (Rust) | Clean -- no deferred technical debt markers |

### 3.5 CI/CD Pipeline Coverage

| Workflow | Trigger | Scope |
|----------|---------|-------|
| `ci.yml` | Push/PR to main, develop, feature/* | Python quality (Black, Flake8, MyPy), security (Bandit, Safety) |
| `cd.yml` | (deployment) | Production deployment |
| `security-scan.yml` | Push/PR + daily cron | SAST with Bandit, Semgrep; dependency scanning with Safety |
| `firmware-ci.yml` | Push/PR | ESP32 firmware build verification |
| `firmware-qemu.yml` | Push/PR | ESP32 QEMU emulation tests |
| `desktop-release.yml` | Release | Desktop application packaging |
| `verify-pipeline.yml` | Push/PR | Deterministic proof verification |
| `update-submodules.yml` | Manual/scheduled | Git submodule sync |

**Gap:** No CI workflow runs `cargo test --workspace` for the Rust codebase. The 2,618+ Rust tests appear to run only locally. This is a significant gap -- the largest and most critical codebase has no automated CI test execution.

---

## 4. Recommendations Matrix

| # | Recommendation | Priority | Effort | Impact | Domain |
|---|---------------|----------|--------|--------|--------|
| R1 | **Add Rust workspace tests to CI** -- Create a GitHub Actions workflow that runs `cargo test --workspace --no-default-features`. The 2,618 Rust tests are the project's primary safety net but run only locally. | CRITICAL | Low (1-2 days) | Very High | CI/CD |
| R2 | **Reduce `.unwrap()` calls** -- Audit and convert the 720 `.unwrap()` calls in Rust production code to proper `?` error propagation. Prioritize crates in the real-time pipeline: `signal`, `mat`, `hardware`, `sensing-server`. | CRITICAL | High (2-3 weeks) | Very High | Reliability |
| R3 | **Audit `unsafe` blocks** -- Review all 340 `unsafe` blocks. Document safety invariants for each. Consider using `unsafe_code` lint to flag new additions. | CRITICAL | Medium (1-2 weeks) | High | Security |
| R4 | **Add Python unit tests for untested modules** -- 11 of 12 Python source modules have zero unit tests. Priority targets: `api/` (3,694 LOC), `services/` (3,038 LOC), `database/` (1,715 LOC), `middleware/` (1,798 LOC). | HIGH | Medium (2-3 weeks) | High | Coverage |
| R5 | **Add integration tests for 7 Rust crates** -- `wifi-densepose-core`, `wifi-densepose-hardware`, `wifi-densepose-nn`, `wifi-densepose-ruvector`, `wifi-densepose-vitals`, `wifi-densepose-wifiscan`, `wifi-densepose-cli` have unit tests but no integration test directory. | HIGH | Medium (2 weeks) | High | Coverage |
| R6 | **Break up `sensing-server/src/main.rs`** (4,846 lines) -- Extract route handlers, middleware, and configuration into separate modules. This single file is nearly 10x the project's 500-line guideline. | HIGH | Medium (1 week) | Medium | Maintainability |
| R7 | **Add E2E tests** -- Only 1 E2E test file exists (`test_healthcare_scenario.py` with 8 tests). For a system with REST API, WebSocket streaming, hardware integration, and mobile clients, E2E coverage is critically insufficient. | HIGH | High (3-4 weeks) | Very High | Coverage |
| R8 | **Add tests to `wifi-densepose-wasm`** (1,805 LOC, 0 tests) -- This crate contains MAT WebAssembly bindings used in browser deployment. Zero test coverage for a user-facing interface is unacceptable. | HIGH | Low (3-5 days) | Medium | Coverage |
| R9 | **Add firmware unit tests** -- Adopt a C unit test framework (Unity, CMock, or CTest) for the 9,445 lines of ESP32 firmware. The fuzz harnesses are a good start but do not substitute for structured unit tests. | MEDIUM | Medium (2 weeks) | Medium | Coverage |
| R10 | **Improve Rust public API documentation** -- 54.5% of `pub fn` declarations lack doc comments. Add `#![warn(missing_docs)]` to crate lib.rs files to enforce documentation. | MEDIUM | Medium (1-2 weeks) | Medium | Documentation |
| R11 | **Add `rustfmt.toml`** -- No Rust formatting configuration found. Add workspace-level `rustfmt.toml` and enforce in CI with `cargo fmt --check`. | LOW | Low (1 day) | Low | Consistency |
| R12 | **Reduce cyclomatic complexity** -- Average complexity of 24.09 is well above the 15 threshold. Target the 24 files over 500 lines for refactoring. | MEDIUM | High (3-4 weeks) | High | Maintainability |

---

## 5. Overall Quality Score

### 5.1 Scoring Methodology

Weighted scoring across 8 dimensions, each rated 0-100:

| Dimension | Weight | Score | Weighted | Rationale |
|-----------|--------|-------|----------|-----------|
| Unit test coverage | 20% | 68 | 13.6 | 3,142 unit tests is strong for Rust/mobile, but Python modules severely undertested |
| Integration test coverage | 15% | 32 | 4.8 | Only 7 of 19 Rust crates have integration tests; Python integration tests exist but skip core modules |
| E2E test coverage | 10% | 8 | 0.8 | 1 E2E file with 8 tests for a multi-platform system is critically insufficient |
| Security posture | 15% | 82 | 12.3 | Strong CI security scanning, clean code patterns, daily Bandit/Semgrep/Safety; offset by 340 unsafe blocks needing audit |
| Code quality / complexity | 15% | 35 | 5.3 | AQE score 37/100, 720 unwraps, 24 oversized files, high cyclomatic complexity |
| CI/CD maturity | 10% | 55 | 5.5 | 8 workflows is good breadth, but missing Rust test execution in CI is a major gap |
| Documentation | 10% | 78 | 7.8 | 79 ADRs, strong docstrings in Python, moderate Rust doc coverage, witness bundles |
| Architecture governance | 5% | 90 | 4.5 | Exemplary ADR practice, DDD bounded contexts, deterministic verification pipeline |
| **Total** | **100%** | | **54.6** | |

### 5.2 Final Verdict

```
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|              QE QUEEN ORCHESTRATION COMPLETE                   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Project: wifi-densepose (WiFi CSI Pose Estimation)            |
|  Total Codebase: ~305K lines across 5 languages                |
|  Total Tests: 3,327 (2,618 Rust + 488 Python + 202 Mobile     |
|               + 3 firmware fuzz + 16 Rust integration files)   |
|  Fleet ID: fleet-02558e91                                      |
|  Domains Analyzed: 5                                           |
|  Duration: ~120s                                               |
|  Status: COMPLETED                                             |
|                                                                |
|  OVERALL QUALITY SCORE: 55 / 100                               |
|  GRADE: C+                                                     |
|  RELEASE READINESS: NOT READY (quality gate FAILED)            |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
```

### 5.3 Summary Assessment

**Strengths:**
- Exceptional architecture governance with 79 ADRs and deterministic verification (witness bundles)
- Strong Rust unit test count (2,618) with good distribution across signal processing and training crates
- Mature security CI pipeline with daily scheduled scanning (Bandit, Semgrep, Safety)
- Mobile UI has the best test-to-code ratio in the entire project
- No hardcoded secrets, no unsafe string operations in firmware, clean security patterns

**Critical Gaps:**
- Rust tests do not run in CI -- the 2,618 tests are only a local safety net
- 720 `.unwrap()` calls create panic risk in production signal processing pipelines
- 340 `unsafe` blocks need formal audit with documented safety invariants
- 11 of 12 Python source modules have zero unit tests
- Only 8 E2E test functions for a multi-platform, multi-service system
- `sensing-server/main.rs` at 4,846 lines is a monolith risk

**Path to Release Readiness (target: 75/100):**
1. Add Rust CI workflow (+10 points to CI maturity)
2. Add Python unit tests for top 4 untested modules (+8 points to unit coverage)
3. Audit and reduce `.unwrap()` count by 50% (+5 points to code quality)
4. Add 5+ E2E test scenarios (+4 points to E2E coverage)
5. Add integration tests to `core`, `hardware`, `nn` crates (+5 points to integration coverage)

---

*Report generated by QE Queen Coordinator (fleet-02558e91)*  
*Learnings stored: `queen-orchestration-full-qe-2026-04-05` in namespace `learning`*  
*AQE v3 quality assessment saved to: `.agentic-qe/results/quality/2026-04-05T11-02-19_assessment.json`*
