Public report — 52ABP.Template, published 3 Aug 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdog 03-08-2026 @ 22:32 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

52ABP/52ABP.Template

42% Provisional

Small · 5,918 LoC · 8 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Accessibility (34%)

Degraded — solution could not be loaded
The C# solution could not be loaded in the analyzer (the workspace returned 0 projects), so every compiler-dependent dimension ran on nothing and the size/effort figures were estimated directly from source text. This run is Degraded — treat the grade as indicative only. See diagnostics.md for the exact cause (which solution project references resolved vs were missing, a structure map of the analyzed tree, and the solution/project files), then re-run for a reliable result.

Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸

61/63dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 2 LLM-assisted, advisory
28findings with an exact file:lineof 65 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
63/109dimensions across the health lenses5918 LoC · 8 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

Read through the Template lens: this is a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. The ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A, and the colour bands on what remains are relaxed to what an example needs. Code correctness stays near-strict; the score is absolute and comparable across repos.

52ABP/52ABP.Template is in a workable but fragile state (42%). It is not in crisis, but it carries material risk that makes change slower and incidents harder to contain if left unaddressed.

It is strongest in Architecture (88%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained.

Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.

The area that most needs attention is Accessibility (34%) — it raises ongoing delivery and operational cost. Readiness (43%) is the next concern — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative… (Text alternatives); Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler) (Keyboard semantics); accessibility in the toolchain (A11y enforcement).

For scale: Small (~5,918 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (88%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Accessibility 34% · 46% weightReadiness 43% · 25% weightSecurity 44% · 14% weightCode Health 52% · 8% weightPerformance 60% · 4% weightMaturity 67% · 2% weightArchitecture 88% · 1% weight

Raise Accessibility 34 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 42 → ~48.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 15%Plumbing 77%Tests 8%
New since the last scan (17+)

17 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-29) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D30 · Medium CVE: HtmlSanitizer 5.0.404
  • D30 · Medium CVE: HtmlSanitizer 5.0.404
  • D30 · Medium CVE: SharpCompress 0.28.2
  • D30 · Medium CVE: SharpCompress 0.28.2
  • D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Host/Dockerfile
  • D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Dockerfile
  • D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 src/angular-zorro-free/Dockerfile
  • R10 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) src/angular-zorro-free/src/shared/directives/validation/min-value-validator.directive.ts
  • R10 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/roles/roles.component.ts
  • R10 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/roles/roles.component.ts
  • R10 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/tenants/edit-tenant/edit-tenant.component.ts
  • R10 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) src/angular-zorro-free/src/assets/abp-web-resources/abp.js
  • R10 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) src/angular-zorro-free/src/shared/component-base/modal-paged-listing-component-base.ts
  • R10 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3 locations) src/angular-zorro-free/src/account/login/login.component.ts
  • R10 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) src/angular-zorro-free/src/account/register/register.component.ts
  • R7 · Dead file (~81 LoC) src/angular-zorro-free/src/account/register/register.component.ts
  • R8 · Unlisted import '@abp/features' src/angular-zorro-free/src/shared/component-base/app-component-base.ts

A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €2,000–€10,000
Cost to rebuild€2,000–€10,000 (0.1 person-years (34–106 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 42% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 57% boilerplate · 27% straight-line · 17% branching logic
Dead frontend code~2215 LoC unreachable (40 file(s)) — that slice of this estimate buys code with zero runtime value; deleting it is the cheapest win in this report (the R7 card lists every file)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€6,100 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Accessibility at 34% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.2) — service/app, CQRS × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source (the solution did not build in-analyzer). Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.

1
Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.
+7.1 pts · Medium effort · Text alternatives
2
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
+7.1 pts · Medium effort · Keyboard semantics
3
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add @angular-eslint/eslint-plugin-template (a11y rules), then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
+7.0 pts · Medium effort · A11y enforcement

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Accessibility at 34%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (5,918 LoC) · weakest lens: Accessibility 34%
→ Direct remediation budget at Accessibility first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

arch LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application Application LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Core Core LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application->LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Core LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.EntityFrameworkCore EntityFrameworkCore LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.EntityFrameworkCore->LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Core LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Migrator Migrator LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Migrator->LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Core LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Migrator->LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.EntityFrameworkCore LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Core Core LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Core->LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Core->LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.EntityFrameworkCore LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Host Host LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Host->LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Core LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc Mvc LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc->LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Core

Architecture — module dependency matrix

58 modules, 74 dependencies — 1 dependency cycle, shown as the red cell(s) above the diagonal. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

…Template.Auditing.Dto…thentication.External…hentication.JwtBearer…rization.Accounts.Dto…ate.Configuration.Dto…oCmsTemplate.Editions…e.EntityFrameworkCore…late.Models.TokenAuth…late.MultiTenancy.Dto…CmsTemplate.Roles.Dto…Template.Sessions.Dto…CmsTemplate.Users.Dto…CmsTemplate.Web.Views…e.Authorization.Roles…workCore.Repositories…ityFrameworkCore.Seed…ameworkCore.Seed.Host…workCore.Seed.Tenants…ate.Web.Models.Common…late.Web.Models.Users…Template.MultiTenancy…late.Web.Models.Roles…e.Authorization.Users…oCmsTemplate.Features…oCmsTemplate.Migrator…eFree.YoyoCmsTemplate…emplate.Authorization…oCmsTemplate.Identity…YoyoCmsTemplate.Roles…oCmsTemplate.Auditing…uthorization.Accounts…emplate.Configuration…sTemplate.Controllers…oCmsTemplate.Sessions…YoyoCmsTemplate.Users…plate.Web.Controllers….Web.Host.Controllers…s.RightNavbarUserArea…nents.SideBarUserArea…mponents.TenantChange…Template.Auditing.Dto1…thentication.External2…hentication.JwtBearer3…rization.Accounts.Dto4…ate.Configuration.Dto5…oCmsTemplate.Editions6…e.EntityFrameworkCore7…late.Models.TokenAuth8…late.MultiTenancy.Dto9…CmsTemplate.Roles.Dto10…Template.Sessions.Dto11…CmsTemplate.Users.Dto12…CmsTemplate.Web.Views13…e.Authorization.Roles14…workCore.Repositories15…ityFrameworkCore.Seed16…ameworkCore.Seed.Host17…workCore.Seed.Tenants18…ate.Web.Models.Common19…late.Web.Models.Users20…Template.MultiTenancy21…late.Web.Models.Roles22…e.Authorization.Users23…oCmsTemplate.Features24…oCmsTemplate.Migrator25…eFree.YoyoCmsTemplate26…emplate.Authorization27…oCmsTemplate.Identity28…YoyoCmsTemplate.Roles29…oCmsTemplate.Auditing30…uthorization.Accounts31…emplate.Configuration32…sTemplate.Controllers33…oCmsTemplate.Sessions34…YoyoCmsTemplate.Users35…plate.Web.Controllers36….Web.Host.Controllers37…s.RightNavbarUserArea38…nents.SideBarUserArea39…mponents.TenantChange4011152121372213142121221141141121831811213151222127221332116112111111111+18 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 52% · Adequate · gated by R7, X5

At a glance — Architecture · 88% · Exemplary

At a glance — Maturity · 67% · Adequate · gated by D34

At a glance — Readiness · 43% · Adequate · gated by R4, R8

At a glance — Security · 44% · Weak · gated by D30, C1

At a glance — Accessibility · 34% · Weak · gated by AC1, AC4

At a glance — Performance · 60% · Strong

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 categoryFindingsSeverity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components25High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection7Medium
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration7High / Critical

Roadmap

First, add text alternatives for all images, SVGs, canvas elements, and video captions to ensure media is accessible. Next, ensure all interactive controls are keyboard-operable and links have valid hrefs. Then, implement programmatic labels for every form control and button, and declare page structure with proper headings and landmarks. Finally, enforce accessibility standards in the development toolchain by integrating automated testing and CI gates.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.+7.1 ptsMediumText alternatives
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.+7.1 ptsMediumKeyboard semantics
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add @angular-eslint/eslint-plugin-template (a11y rules), then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.+7.0 ptsMediumA11y enforcement
Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.+7.0 ptsMediumForms & labels
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.+6.8 ptsMediumPage structure
Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.+6.4 ptsMediumVisual & motion safety
Use valid, non-abstract roles, supply the ARIA state each role requires, and never put aria-hidden on a focusable element.+6.4 ptsMediumARIA correctness
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).+2.8 ptsMediumTest Coverage

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 12 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 0% slop · 25% mixed · 75% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
src/angular-zorro-free/Dockerfile4.4MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Host/Dockerfile5.1MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Dockerfile5.1MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Auditing/AuditLogAppService.cs6.9Near-cleanExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/home/home.component.html7.2Near-cleanStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: var-in-href
src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/wwwroot/view-resources/Views/Users/ChangePassword.js7.9Near-cleanStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: detect-eval-with-expression
src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Controllers/AccountController.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.EntityFrameworkCore/EntityFrameworkCore/Seed/Host/HostRoleAndUserCreator.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (22 lines × 2)
src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Host/Controllers/HomeController.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (16 lines × 2)
src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/tenants/tenants.component.ts8.5Near-cleanChange Coupling: Change coupling: tenants.component.ts ↔ users.component.ts
src/angular-zorro-free/src/account/account.component.html9.0Near-cleanStatic Analysis (SAST): Low: plaintext-http-link
src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/about/about.component.html9.0Near-cleanStatic Analysis (SAST): Low: plaintext-http-link

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog 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. 61 of 63 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.5 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three 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; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. 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; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 63 dimensions across the health lenses
D4D5D9D10D13D14D15D17D19D21D26D28D29D30D31D33D34D35AC1AC2AC3AC4AC5AC6AC7AX1AX10AX3AX5AX6AX8C1C3C4GD1IC1M1M3M4P10P2P4P6P8PF1PF2PF3R1R10R11R2R3R4R6R7R8R9S1X1X2X3X4X5

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
  1. 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, 28 of 65 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.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. 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.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.302✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.302✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019fc9c1-fc90-73c7-b8f6-2ff298968450.

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.

  • D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
  • Solution could not be loaded — run is Degraded — The C# workspace did not read this repository's production source, so every compiler-dependent dimension ran on estimated input. Treat the grade as indicative only; diagnostics.md records the exact cause.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does 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.

  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — 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.
  • 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.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • 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.
  • 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 is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • 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 the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
  • D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
  • 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.
  • AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
  • AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A clean result is "no unlabelled native control found", not a labelling proof.
  • AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
  • 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.
  • C3 Audit Trail: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — a working control configured outside the repository leaves no signal a static scan can credit.
  • C4 Data Retention: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — its real-world effectiveness, exercised only at runtime, is outside a static scan.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • 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.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D4 · Code Duplication9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2)src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.EntityFrameworkCore/EntityFrameworkCore/Seed/Host/HostRoleAndUserCreator.cs:53
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2)src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Host/Controllers/HomeController.cs:33

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D5 · Coupling9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

8 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).

Layer violation: Domain → Application
Off the main sequence: LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Core

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

3 test methods: 3 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.

Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 3 tests.

Mock framework: NSubstitute

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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.

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 11 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

4 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 5918 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8.

CommentedOutCode · ×3src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Auditing/AuditLogAppService.cs:123
TodoCommentsrc/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Controllers/AccountController.cs:279

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Weak / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The README is a strong branding and feature-overview document for an enterprise framework (52Abp) with a clear website link, community engagement note, and a rich multi-paragraph description of features like multi-tenancy, RBAC authentication, audit logging, workflow, message notification, multilingual support, and Angular/Ionic frontend. It also shows backend screenshot tables and a brief 'Extensions and updates' section for the flags icon pack. However, it is a single README with no architecture or design documentation (no markdown files), and only 5/84 XML coverage across its own assemblies, leaving much of the framework's internals undocumented.

XML-doc coverage: LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Core · ×7src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Core/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Core.csproj

What to do

  1. Improve Documentation Quality — currently 4.0/10. — The README is a strong branding and feature-overview document for an enterprise framework (52Abp) with a clear website link, community engagement note, and a rich multi-paragraph description of features like multi-tenancy, RBAC authentication, audit logging, workflow, message notification, multilingual support, and Angular/Ionic frontend. It also shows backend screenshot tables and a brief 'Extensions and updates' section for the flags icon pack. However, it is a single README with no architecture or design documentation (no markdown files), and only 5/84 XML coverage across its own assemblies, leaving much of the framework's internals undocumented.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

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, LLM-independent.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 of 8 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

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: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)8.4 / 10Strong✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

7 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 2 medium, 5 low.

Medium: var-in-href · ×2src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/home/home.component.html:206detected by semgrep finding
Low: plaintext-http-link · ×5src/angular-zorro-free/src/account/account.component.html:12detected by semgrep finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 Low finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with account.component.html (2), about.component.html (2), home.component.html. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with home.component.html, ChangePassword.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs), direct or transitive.

Method: NuGet CVE scan via dotnet list package --vulnerable including transitive; severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades when absent.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

25 vulnerable package(s): 4 critical, 6 high, 15 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: AutoMapper 10.1.1 · ×6detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Critical CVE: System.Drawing.Common 5.0.0 · ×4detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Medium CVE: IdentityServer4 4.1.2 · ×15detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

  1. Resolve the 15 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 6 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 4 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).

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

D31 · IaC & Container Security8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (Dockerfile/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

7 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 3 medium, 1 low.

High IaC: DS-0002 · ×3src/angular-zorro-free/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 · ×3src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Host/Dockerfile:1detected by trivy finding
Low IaC: DS-0026src/angular-zorro-free/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether JavaScript/npm dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) — the npm ecosystem's biggest risk.

Method: JS/npm CVE scan via trivy fs --scanners vuln over JS manifests (package.json/yarn.lock/pnpm-lock/bun.lockb); 0-10 tight normalizer. NotApplicable without JS manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d33_recommendation.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

18 of 18 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Controllers/AccountController.cs.

Further orphaned files (smaller)

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: tenants.component.ts↔users.component.ts 50%

Change coupling: tenants.component.ts ↔ users.component.tssrc/angular-zorro-free/src/app/tenants/tenants.component.ts

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.

AC1 · Text alternatives2.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether non-text content carries a text alternative — img/area/input[type=image] have alt, a meaningful svg has a title or aria-label, video has a captions track, and object/embed/canvas have a name or fallback content. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: every img/area/input[type=image] checked for alt, svg[role=img] for a title/aria-label, video for a captions <track>. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

  • An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative. (×8) — account.component.html:7, about.component.html:103, home.component.html:21, …
  • A <canvas> with no aria-label/title and no inner fallback content can't be described by assistive tech. Add a name or fallback content. — Index.cshtml:197

What to do

  • Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.
AC2 · Forms & labels4.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.

  • This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label. (×24) — login.component.html:16, login.component.html:26, register.component.html:18, …
  • A fieldset groups related controls but has no <legend> to name the group. Add a <legend> as its first child — or, if the group already has a visible caption beside it (or the fieldset is there only to disable its subtree and carries no group box), point aria-labelledby at that caption's id instead, which names the group without rendering a second one. — tenant-change-modal.component.html:9

What to do

  • Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
AC3 · Page structure5.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.

  • No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×3) — index.html:2, _Layout.cshtml:17, _Layout.cshtml:17
  • Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one. (×2) — Index.cshtml:20, Index.cshtml:31

What to do

  • Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
AC4 · Keyboard semantics1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor, no placeholder-href (#/javascript) link acting as a button. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

  • An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action. (×9) — tenant-register.component.html:81, auditlog.component.html:220, roles.component.html:30, …

What to do

  • Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
AC5 · ARIA correctness7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.

  • aria-hidden="true" hides the element from assistive tech but leaves it keyboard-focusable — a confusing dead stop. Remove aria-hidden or make the element non-focusable. — _Alerts.cshtml:35

What to do

  • Use valid, non-abstract roles, supply the ARIA state each role requires, and never put aria-hidden on a focusable element.
AC6 · Visual & motion safety6.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.

  • This stylesheet animates but never checks prefers-reduced-motion, so motion-sensitive users can't opt out. Wrap motion in @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference). — index.html:11

What to do

  • Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.

Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.

  • No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (@angular-eslint/eslint-plugin-template (a11y rules)) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time.

What to do

  • Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add @angular-eslint/eslint-plugin-template (a11y rules), then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
AX1 · Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.

Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.

AX10 · Code composition5.8 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

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 — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
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.

AX5 · Architecture & structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.

Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.

AX6 · Interface segregation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface member counts; fat-interface threshold (over 15 members) flagged per type. Deterministic, type-level.

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

C1 · Data Protection1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.

What to do

  • Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.
  • Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
C3 · Audit Trail7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether changes to sensitive data are recorded (who, what, when) for compliance + incident response.

Method: Roslyn scan: audit-trail mechanism graded (SaveChanges interceptor/immutable AuditLog/[Audited] strong; bare IAuditable/AddAuditing weak). Deterministic.

  • An audit mechanism is present, but the trail is not yet complete — missing: an EF SaveChanges interceptor (or equivalent write-side hook, e.g. an event-store append every change flows through), [Audited] per-entity coverage.

What to do

  • Back the audit convention with a structural mechanism: an EF SaveChanges interceptor (or equivalent) writing every sensitive change to an immutable audit log, and apply [Audited] to the entities that need a who-changed-what trail.
C4 · Data Retention6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether data has a defined lifetime — retention periods, TTLs, cleanup jobs (storage limitation).

Method: Roslyn scan: retention/TTL configuration presence in schema; CascadeDelete detected but not scored as retention control. Deterministic, gated by PII presence.

  • A retention mechanism is present, but the data-lifecycle is not yet complete — missing: a scheduled purge / cleanup job (PurgeOlderThan / CleanupJob), a documented retention period / data-expiry.

What to do

  • Complete the data-lifecycle story: an expiry limit (a declared maximum age for the stored data — a retention-age setting, or a store-level TTL where your storage offers one), a scheduled purge/cleanup job that enforces it, and a documented retention period covering the personal data.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×10) — AuditLogAppService.cs:75, AuditLogAppService.cs:120, AuditLogAppService.cs:121, …

What to do

  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)6.0 / 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 build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 8 of 8 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
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.

M4 · Documentation accuracy8.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.

  • README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists

What to do

  • Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists.
P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • 188/189 types (99%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.

What to do

  • Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.
P2 · Observability6.1 / 10Strong✓ 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 5/7 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 7, 3 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

What to do

  • Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
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.

  • Deployment is orchestrated by compose, but no service declares a `healthcheck:` and nothing pins a previous image to fall back to — the runtime can tell that the container is up, not that it is serving, so a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

What to do

  • Add a `healthcheck:` to the served compose service — probing the endpoint it already answers on where it has one — with `depends_on: condition: service_healthy` on whatever waits for it, and keep the deployed image tag immutable and recorded so rolling back is re-pointing at the previous tag rather than rebuilding.
  • Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether EF Core schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than the un-evolvable EnsureCreated().

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage. Exhaustive per project, deterministic.

PF1 · Benchmark discipline6.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the library protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

  • No benchmark suite was found. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

  • Add a benchmarking harness for the hot paths and run it in CI to catch regressions (for .NET, a BenchmarkDotNet project with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations).
PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

  • No Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask or buffer-writer usage was found. If this library sits on a hot path, these reduce the GC pressure it puts on its host — a bonus, not a requirement.

What to do

  • On hot paths, prefer Span<T>/ReadOnlySpan<T>, ArrayPool<T>, stackalloc and ValueTask to cut allocations a consumer would otherwise inherit.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene6.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code keeps its host responsive — a library awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) (so it never captures and stalls the host's context) and avoids sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) that wastes threads and risks deadlock.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) counted everywhere, and — for a library with ≥5 awaits — the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

  • Only 0/121 awaits use ConfigureAwait(false). A library that captures the caller's context can stall or deadlock its host — the classic way a dependency drags an app down.

What to do

  • In library code, append .ConfigureAwait(false) to every await (or set <ConfigureAwait>false</ConfigureAwait> / use the analyzer CA2007) so the library never captures the host's context.
R1 · Type Safety9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.

Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.

What to do

  • Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
R10 · Code Duplication8.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Copy-pasted token-identical blocks across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386).

Method: Copy-pasted token-identical blocks across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Deterministic.

  • src/angular-zorro-free/src/shared/directives/validation/min-value-validator.directive.ts:2 · src/angular-zorro-free/src/shared/directives/validation/password-complexity-validator.directive.ts:2 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — min-value-validator.directive.ts:2
  • src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/roles/roles.component.ts:51 · src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/users/users.component.ts:49 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — roles.component.ts:51
  • src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/roles/roles.component.ts:17 · src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/users/users.component.ts:17 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — roles.component.ts:17
  • src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/tenants/edit-tenant/edit-tenant.component.ts:6 · src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/users/edit-user/edit-user.component.ts:15 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — edit-tenant.component.ts:6
  • src/angular-zorro-free/src/assets/abp-web-resources/abp.js:783 · src/angular-zorro-free/src/assets/abp-web-resources/abp.js:818 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — abp.js:783
  • src/angular-zorro-free/src/shared/component-base/modal-paged-listing-component-base.ts:83 · src/angular-zorro-free/src/shared/component-base/paged-listing-component-base.ts:94 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — modal-paged-listing-component-base.ts:83
  • src/angular-zorro-free/src/account/login/login.component.ts:14 · src/angular-zorro-free/src/account/register/register.component.ts:15 · src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/home/home.component.ts:4 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — login.component.ts:14
  • src/angular-zorro-free/src/account/register/register.component.ts:49 · src/angular-zorro-free/src/account/tenant-register/tenant-register.component.ts:32 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — register.component.ts:49

What to do

  • Extract the duplicated blocks into shared functions/components.
R11 · Import Boundaries10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Architecture — Conformance to the detected frontend architecture layout (feature-sliced / layered src) plus cross-package deep-import rules (D-386).

Method: Conformance to the detected frontend layout (feature-sliced / layered src) plus cross-package deep-import rules, over the module graph. Deterministic.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.

Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.

  • Branch-heavy code is where defects cluster — extract decisions into smaller functions. (×3) — abp.js:2, password-complexity-validator.directive.ts:27, abp.js:641

What to do

  • Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
R3 · Large Files9.1 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.

Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.

What to do

  • Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
R4 · Test Coverage3.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.

Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.

  • No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×8) — abp.js, layout-default.component.ts, message.extension.ts, …

What to do

  • Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
R6 · Tooling6.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each package.json script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.

Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.

  • test ✓ · lint ✓ · typecheck ✗

What to do

  • Add `tsc --noEmit` as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
R7 · Dead Code1.5 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).

Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.

  • Unreachable from the 4 application, 7 tooling and 6 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on your build/type-check — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
  • no import path from any entry point (4 application, 7 tooling, 6 test roots considered) (×7) — layout-default.component.ts, home.component.ts, login.service.ts, …

What to do

  • Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.

Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.

  • Imported but not declared in any reachable package.json — installs work only by hoisting accident. (×3) — root.module.ts:28, auth-route-guard.ts:2, app-component-base.ts:4
  • Declared in src/angular-zorro-free/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — dead weight and attack surface. Verify against build tooling before removing. (×3)

What to do

  • Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
R9 · Circular Imports10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.

Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.

S1 · Web-Security Posture4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order and crypto hygiene (presence, not runtime).

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. Deterministic.

  • No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)

What to do

  • Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
  • Enforce HTTPS at the app layer (UseHttpsRedirection / UseHsts) — only skip this if a reverse proxy demonstrably terminates TLS.
  • Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
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.

X2 · Cancellation propagation4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

  • Only 0/30 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×25) — UserRegistrationManager.cs:40, UserRegistrationManager.cs:81, UserRegistrationManager.cs:91, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.

X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. Deterministic.

X5 · Nullable reference types2.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

  • 0/7 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

What to do

  • Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 15 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (27%; ≈30% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 40 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

DimensionWCAG 2.2 A/AA criteriaCoverage
AC1 · Text alternatives1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.5Partial signal
AC2 · Forms & labels1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2Partial signal
AC3 · Page structure1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2Partial signal
AC4 · Keyboard semantics2.1.1, 2.4.3Partial signal
AC5 · ARIA correctness4.1.2Partial signal
AC6 · Visual & motion safety1.4.3, 2.4.7Partial — literal CSS only
AC7 · A11y enforcementenforcement — no page criterionEnforcement posture (process)

Not statically assessed — these 40 Level A/AA criteria need runtime or manual evaluation (WCAG-EM): 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.11, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.1.3.

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.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health52%Adequate — gated by R7, X5Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture88%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity67%Adequate — gated by D34Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness43%Adequate — gated by R4, R8Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security44%Weak — gated by D30, C1Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Accessibility34%Weak — gated by AC1, AC4Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance60%StrongSolid.
Not included — 46 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.

  • AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
  • AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • C2 Access Controls — This is a dotnet-new template — authorization is deferred to the application you build from it. Add [Authorize]/policies (or imperative guards) when you wire up real users; until then there are no real endpoints to protect.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.js, .ts) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it, so cyclomatic complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test runner surfaced no tests
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — no packages were read
  • D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
  • D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution, but this repository's production source is mostly .ts, which the C#/VB workspace does not load — the projects that loaded are an immaterial minority, so solution shape was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.js, .ts) had no cognitive complexity computed for it, so cognitive complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
  • D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D27 Navigability — Most of this repository's production source (.ts) was not read by navigability analysis, so tracing effort was not assessed — whatever else resolved (another language's projects) is not this repository's navigability. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D3 God Classes — Most of this repository's production source (.js, .ts) was not read by god-class detection, so class size was not assessed for the languages that are the product — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's class size. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
  • 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.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
  • D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
  • 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.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is mostly .ts, which this pass does not read, so cohesion was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 2 event handler(s); 2 CQRS handler(s)
  • 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 check looks for
  • M2 Architecture documentation — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — formal architecture documentation (ADRs, C4 diagrams) is deferred to a real application built from it, so its absence is not a defect here.
  • P1 CI/CD gates — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. Automated CI/CD gates are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
  • P3 Security & performance tooling — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarks are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • R5 Dependency Freshness — no package-lock.json — dependency freshness not measured (would require an npm lockfile); JS/npm CVEs are scored in D33 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities)
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.

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.

Issue — 14 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×6
  • High CVE: AutoMapper 10.1.1 — AutoMapper 10.1.1 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 8 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: System.Linq.Dynamic.Core 1.2.10 — System.Linq.Dynamic.Core 1.2.10 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 8 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0 — System.Net.Http 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 8 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 — System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 8 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: Masuit.Tools.Core 2.4.3.4 — Masuit.Tools.Core 2.4.3.4 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 5 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 2.0.1 — Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 2.0.1 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 6 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×4
  • Critical CVE: System.Drawing.Common 5.0.0 — System.Drawing.Common 5.0.0 (transitive) has a Critical advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Critical CVE: System.Linq.Dynamic.Core 1.2.10 — System.Linq.Dynamic.Core 1.2.10 (transitive) has a Critical advisory; affects 8 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Critical CVE: System.Text.Encodings.Web 4.7.0 — System.Text.Encodings.Web 4.7.0 (transitive) has a Critical advisory; affects 8 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Critical CVE: System.Drawing.Common 5.0.2 — System.Drawing.Common 5.0.2 (transitive) has a Critical advisory; affects 5 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×3
  • High IaC: DS-0002 src/angular-zorro-free/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root' A container that starts as root runs your process with root's capabilities inside the namespace, so a compromise of the process starts from there. The step: create an unprivileged account in the image (`RUN useradd -r -M app` — or whatever this base image's account tooling is, `adduser` and `useradd` are not both present everywhere`), give it ownership of the paths the process writes at runtime (`COPY --chown=` on those layers, or a `RUN chown -R`), and end the final stage with `USER app` so it is the default at start. Build stages that only compile can stay root; it is the stage that RUNS that needs the account. If the process genuinely requires root — it manages the container runtime, ptraces another process or opens raw devices — say so here rather than making a change that breaks it.
  • High IaC: DS-0002 src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Host/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root' A container that starts as root runs your process with root's capabilities inside the namespace, so a compromise of the process starts from there. The step: create an unprivileged account in the image (`RUN useradd -r -M app` — or whatever this base image's account tooling is, `adduser` and `useradd` are not both present everywhere`), give it ownership of the paths the process writes at runtime (`COPY --chown=` on those layers, or a `RUN chown -R`), and end the final stage with `USER app` so it is the default at start. Build stages that only compile can stay root; it is the stage that RUNS that needs the account. If the process genuinely requires root — it manages the container runtime, ptraces another process or opens raw devices — say so here rather than making a change that breaks it.
  • High IaC: DS-0002 src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root' A container that starts as root runs your process with root's capabilities inside the namespace, so a compromise of the process starts from there. The step: create an unprivileged account in the image (`RUN useradd -r -M app` — or whatever this base image's account tooling is, `adduser` and `useradd` are not both present everywhere`), give it ownership of the paths the process writes at runtime (`COPY --chown=` on those layers, or a `RUN chown -R`), and end the final stage with `USER app` so it is the default at start. Build stages that only compile can stay root; it is the stage that RUNS that needs the account. If the process genuinely requires root — it manages the container runtime, ptraces another process or opens raw devices — say so here rather than making a change that breaks it.
D5 · Coupling · Layer violation · ×1
  • Layer violation: Domain → Application — LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Core (Domain) references LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application (Application) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).
Warning — 31 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×15
  • Medium CVE: IdentityServer4 4.1.2 — IdentityServer4 4.1.2 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 8 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: IdentityServer4 4.1.2 — IdentityServer4 4.1.2 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 8 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 5.6.0 — Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 5.6.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 5 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 5.6.0 — System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 5.6.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 5 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: AngleSharp 0.15.0 — AngleSharp 0.15.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 5 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: HtmlSanitizer 5.0.404 — HtmlSanitizer 5.0.404 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 5 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: HtmlSanitizer 5.0.404 — HtmlSanitizer 5.0.404 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 5 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: SharpCompress 0.28.2 — SharpCompress 0.28.2 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 5 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: SharpCompress 0.28.2 — SharpCompress 0.28.2 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 5 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 4.5.0 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 4.5.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 5 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 2.0.1 — Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 2.0.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 6 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: log4net 2.0.12 — log4net 2.0.12 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 6.7.1 — Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 6.7.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Swashbuckle.AspNetCore.SwaggerUI 5.4.1 — Swashbuckle.AspNetCore.SwaggerUI 5.4.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 6.7.1 — System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 6.7.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×3
  • CommentedOutCode src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Auditing/AuditLogAppService.cs:123 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Auditing/AuditLogAppService.cs:130 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Auditing/AuditLogAppService.cs:136 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×3
  • Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Host/Dockerfile:1 — Ensure that a user for the container has been created
  • Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Dockerfile:1 — Ensure that a user for the container has been created
  • Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 src/angular-zorro-free/Dockerfile:1 — Ensure that a user for the container has been created
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · Medium · ×2
  • Medium: var-in-href src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/home/home.component.html:206 — Detected a template variable used in an anchor tag with the 'href' attribute. This allows a malicious actor to input the 'javascript:' URI and is subject to cross- site scripting (XSS) attacks. Emit the link through your template layer's URL construction: a helper that percent-encodes the value and rejects any scheme other than http/https, rather than interpolating it raw. Where the template engine is a third-party generator you do not control, validate the value before it reaches the template. You may also consider setting the Content Security Policy (CSP) header. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
  • Medium: detect-eval-with-expression src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/wwwroot/view-resources/Views/Users/ChangePassword.js:39 — Detected use of dynamic execution of JavaScript which may come from user-input, which can lead to Cross-Site-Scripting (XSS). Where possible avoid including user-input in functions which dynamically execute user-input.
D16 · Bus Factor · dormant codebase · ×1
  • dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate — All 3 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness).
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×1
  • TodoComment src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Controllers/AccountController.cs:279 — // TODO: ...? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D24 · Comment Value · LLM evaluation failed · ×1
  • LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.notable[4].suggestion | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 989.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1
  • Change coupling: tenants.component.ts ↔ users.component.ts src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/tenants/tenants.component.ts — `src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/tenants/tenants.component.ts` and `src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/users/users.component.ts` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) 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 (that is what the inversion buys) and the thing to add is a comment saying so, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.EntityFrameworkCore/EntityFrameworkCore/Seed/Host/HostRoleAndUserCreator.cs:53 — src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.EntityFrameworkCore/EntityFrameworkCore/Seed/Host/HostRoleAndUserCreator.cs:53-74 | src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.EntityFrameworkCore/EntityFrameworkCore/Seed/Tenants/TenantRoleAndUserBuilder.cs:55-76 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.EntityFrameworkCore/EntityFrameworkCore/Seed/Host/HostRoleAndUserCreator.cs:53` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Host/Controllers/HomeController.cs:33 — src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Host/Controllers/HomeController.cs:33-48 | src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Controllers/AccountController.cs:442-457 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1
  • Off the main sequence: LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Core — LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Core: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 6 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — analyzer environment — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the analyzer environment could not build/run this repository's test suite, whose production source is .cs, .ts. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. We track the analyzer-image gap so it can be closed; in the meantime, produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference, or lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored and real coverage will be read.
Recommendation — 10 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · Low · ×5
  • Low: plaintext-http-link src/angular-zorro-free/src/account/account.component.html:12 — This link points to a plaintext HTTP URL. Prefer an encrypted HTTPS URL if possible.
  • Low: plaintext-http-link src/angular-zorro-free/src/account/account.component.html:30 — This link points to a plaintext HTTP URL. Prefer an encrypted HTTPS URL if possible.
  • Low: plaintext-http-link src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/about/about.component.html:11 — This link points to a plaintext HTTP URL. Prefer an encrypted HTTPS URL if possible.
  • Low: plaintext-http-link src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/about/about.component.html:30 — This link points to a plaintext HTTP URL. Prefer an encrypted HTTPS URL if possible.
  • Low: plaintext-http-link src/angular-zorro-free/src/app/home/home.component.html:74 — This link points to a plaintext HTTP URL. Prefer an encrypted HTTPS URL if possible.
D11 · Test Reliability · Test runner surfaced no tests · ×1
  • Test runner surfaced no tests — Test reliability not scored — the test tier(s) ran but surfaced none of this repository's 3 test method(s) to the runner, so flakiness couldn't be exercised. This is an analysis-environment limitation, not a finding about the tests.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — At 6k LoC across 8 projects the codebase is mid-range size and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are warranted. Name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can 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"]`.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×1
  • Low IaC: DS-0026 src/angular-zorro-free/Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined Without one the runtime only knows whether the process is alive, not whether it is serving, so a wedged container is restarted by nobody. The step: add a `HEALTHCHECK` to the image that probes the service the way a client would — a request to its own listening endpoint, exiting non-zero when it does not answer — and give it an `--interval`, a `--timeout` and a `--start-period` long enough to cover startup. If the image ships no HTTP client, probe with whatever the runtime already has, or declare the check in the orchestrator instead and say so here.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1
  • Further orphaned files (smaller) — 18 of 18 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 100 lines or more, excluding tests, vendored, generated and example/demo trees, largest first). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — largest first: src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Controllers/AccountController.cs, src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Net/MimeTypes/MimeTypeNames.cs, src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Auditing/AuditLogAppService.cs (and 15 more). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Scanner failed to run · ×1
  • Scanner failed to run — not a clean result — osv-scanner exited 128 with no findings — the advisory database was likely unreachable. The scanner exited non-zero and produced no findings (typically the advisory DB was unreachable), so this is reported as a measurement gap rather than a clean pass.
Info — 10 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×7
  • XML-doc coverage: LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Core src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Core/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Core.csproj — LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Core: 6 % XML-doc coverage (5/84).
  • XML-doc coverage: LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application.csproj — LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application: 30 % XML-doc coverage (106/356).
  • XML-doc coverage: LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Migrator src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Migrator/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Migrator.csproj — LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Migrator: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/15).
  • XML-doc coverage: LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Host src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Host/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Host.csproj — LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Host: 5 % XML-doc coverage (1/19).
  • XML-doc coverage: LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Core src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Core/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Core.csproj — LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Core: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/71).
  • XML-doc coverage: LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.EntityFrameworkCore src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.EntityFrameworkCore/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.EntityFrameworkCore.csproj — LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.EntityFrameworkCore: 4 % XML-doc coverage (2/45).
  • XML-doc coverage: LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc.csproj — LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc: 1 % XML-doc coverage (2/146).
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×1
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Tests references NSubstitute.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Dependency hygiene not measured · ×1
  • Dependency hygiene not measured — no packages were read — This repository has NuGet-managed production source (.cs), whose `<PackageReference>` dependencies are exactly what this dimension assesses — but `dotnet list package` returned no packages, so there was nothing to assess. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED. This is a gap in the analysis run (restore or project-load failed), not a verdict about this repository. Dependencies declared for the other ecosystems present here (.ts) are not read yet either.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

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.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaksgitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrepsemgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .7artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnetdotnet list src/aspnet-core/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json25artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivytrivy config --format json --quiet .7artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrepsemgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivytrivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update0
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenanceprovenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.0
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosuredisclosure: 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
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scannerosv-scanner --format json --recursive .0
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardeningruntime-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 Confinementruntime-hardeningruntime-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 Enforcementruntime-hardeningruntime-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

Run 019fc9c1-fc90-73c7-b8f6-2ff298968450 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 25 field(s) across 2 categories, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.

Email — 13 field(s)
  • RegisterInput.EmailAddress src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Authorization/Accounts/Dto/RegisterInput.cs:27
  • CreateTenantDto.AdminEmailAddress src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/MultiTenancy/Dto/CreateTenantDto.cs:22
  • UserLoginInfoDto.EmailAddress src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Sessions/Dto/UserLoginInfoDto.cs:16
  • CreateUserDto.EmailAddress src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Users/Dto/CreateUserDto.cs:28
  • UserDto.EmailAddress src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Users/Dto/UserDto.cs:28
  • ValidationHelper.EmailRegex src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Core/Validation/ValidationHelper.cs:8
  • ExternalAuthUserInfo.EmailAddress src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Core/Authentication/External/ExternalAuthUserInfo.cs:9
  • AuthenticateModel.UserNameOrEmailAddress src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Core/Models/TokenAuth/AuthenticateModel.cs:10
  • LoginViewModel.UsernameOrEmailAddress src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Models/Account/LoginViewModel.cs:9
  • RegisterResultViewModel.EmailAddress src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Models/Account/RegisterResultViewModel.cs:9
  • RegisterResultViewModel.IsEmailConfirmationRequiredForLogin src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Models/Account/RegisterResultViewModel.cs:15
  • RegisterResultViewModel.IsEmailConfirmed src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Models/Account/RegisterResultViewModel.cs:17
  • RegisterViewModel.EmailAddress src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Models/Account/RegisterViewModel.cs:26
Name — 12 field(s)
  • EntityChangeDto.EntityTypeFullName src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Auditing/Dtos/EntityChangeDto.cs:17
  • EntityChangeListDto.EntityTypeFullName src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Auditing/Dtos/EntityChangeListDto.cs:15
  • EntityPropertyChangeDto.PropertyTypeFullName src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Auditing/Dtos/EntityPropertyChangeDto.cs:15
  • GetEntityChangeInput.EntityTypeFullName src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Auditing/Dtos/GetEntityChangeInput.cs:16
  • RegisterInput.Surname src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Authorization/Accounts/Dto/RegisterInput.cs:18
  • UserLoginInfoDto.Surname src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Sessions/Dto/UserLoginInfoDto.cs:12
  • CreateUserDto.Surname src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Users/Dto/CreateUserDto.cs:23
  • UserDto.Surname src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Users/Dto/UserDto.cs:23
  • UserDto.FullName src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Application/Users/Dto/UserDto.cs:32
  • ExternalAuthUserInfo.Surname src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Core/Authentication/External/ExternalAuthUserInfo.cs:11
  • RegisterResultViewModel.NameAndSurname src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Models/Account/RegisterResultViewModel.cs:11
  • RegisterViewModel.Surname src/aspnet-core/src/LTMCompanyNameFree.YoyoCmsTemplate.Web.Mvc/Models/Account/RegisterViewModel.cs:18

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md