freedom — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

This system holds an adequate overall standing of 53%, reflecting a small, well-structured asset that is currently fragile in its operational readiness. While the code itself is clean and the architecture sound, the lack of automated safeguards creates a significant risk to delivery speed and reliability. The business value tied up here is modest, with a rebuild cost of approximately €25,000, meaning the primary exposure is not the cost of failure but the delay and instability it causes during deployment.

The most critical theme is operational fragility. With a readiness score of only 35%, the system lacks the automated checks necessary to ensure safe releases. This means every change carries a higher risk of defects reaching production, potentially leading to outages or security regressions that could have been caught earlier. The absence of a continuous integration pipeline is the root cause, leaving the team to manually verify builds, which slows down delivery and increases the likelihood of human error.

A second theme is development maturity. Although the code health is excellent at 90% and the architecture is robust at 80%, the maturity score of 57% indicates that new team members may struggle to understand the operational context. Without automated testing and security scanning integrated into the workflow, the knowledge required to maintain the system remains siloed, increasing the cost of future changes and reducing the team’s ability to respond quickly to issues.

What is genuinely good is the code quality and architectural integrity. The high scores in code health, architecture, and security scanning readiness suggest that the foundation is solid. The logic is clear, and the structure supports future changes without excessive rework. This provides a strong base for improvement, as fixing the operational gaps will not require rewriting the core logic.

The first action to focus on is implementing a continuous integration workflow. This single step will automate testing and security checks on every change, immediately reducing the risk of defects and improving delivery speed. It is the highest-leverage move because it addresses the weakest lens while building a foundation for further improvements. Until this is in place, the system remains vulnerable to avoidable operational failures.

Code Health 90% Strong Architecture 80% Strong Maturity 57% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 35% Weak · gated by P1, P3 Security 88% Strong Domain Modelling 70% Adequate Event-Driven 91% ★ Exemplary

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.

Readiness 35% · 46% weightMaturity 57% · 25% weightDomain Modelling 70% · 14% weightArchitecture 80% · 8% weightSecurity 88% · 4% weightCode Health 90% · 2% weightEvent-Driven 91% · 1% weight

Raise Readiness 35 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 53 → ~66.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €8,200–€41,000

Cost to rebuild	€8,200–€41,000 (0.1–0.3 person-years (137–434 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	High — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 53% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€25,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 35% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain High (×1.6) — CQRS, domain model, event-driven integration × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. 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.

Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

+15.6 pts · REDACTED effort · CI/CD gates

Run what this repository's stack ships: gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.

+15.6 pts · REDACTED effort · Security & performance tooling

Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.

+15.2 pts · REDACTED effort · Deployment & Rollback

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk

This is a Small asset (~0.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 35%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.2 person-years rebuild (15,019 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 35%

→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

Highest-leverage move · REDACTED · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.

Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort

→ Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

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.)

50 modules, 91 dependencies. 2 dependency cycles across 12 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 10 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 com/8treenet/freedom/example/base/adapter/repository	2 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain/vo	3 com/8treenet/freedom/example/http2/domain/vo	4 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain/vo	5 com/8treenet/freedom/infra/requests	6 com/8treenet/freedom/example/http2/adapter/repository	7 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain/po	8 com/8treenet/freedom/middleware	9 com/8treenet/freedom/internal	10 com/8treenet/freedom	11 com/8treenet/freedom/example/base/domain	12 com/8treenet/freedom/example/base/infra	14 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain/event	15 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/infra	16 com/8treenet/freedom/example/http2/domain	17 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain/entity	18 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain/event	19 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/infra	21 com/8treenet/freedom/infra/kafka	22 com/8treenet/freedom/infra/store	29 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/infra/domainevent	30 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/adapter/repository	31 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain/po	32 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/infra/domainevent	33 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain	34 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain/entity	36 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain/dependency	37 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/adapter/repository	38 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain/aggregate	39 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain
1 com/8treenet/freedom/example/base/adapter/repository
2 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain/vo
3 com/8treenet/freedom/example/http2/domain/vo
4 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain/vo
5 com/8treenet/freedom/infra/requests
6 com/8treenet/freedom/example/http2/adapter/repository			2
7 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain/po																						2						2
8 com/8treenet/freedom/middleware					1				1
9 com/8treenet/freedom/internal					2			1		1
10 com/8treenet/freedom									6
11 com/8treenet/freedom/example/base/domain	2								1
12 com/8treenet/freedom/example/base/infra									1
13 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/adapter/consumer									1
14 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain/event									2
15 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/infra									1
16 com/8treenet/freedom/example/http2/domain						1			1
17 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain/entity									2													2						2
18 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain/event									1
19 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/infra									1
20 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/infra/demo									1
21 com/8treenet/freedom/infra/kafka					1				2
22 com/8treenet/freedom/infra/store									3
23 com/8treenet/freedom/example/base										1
24 com/8treenet/freedom/example/base/adapter/controller									1		2	1
25 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop										1
26 com/8treenet/freedom/example/http2										1
27 com/8treenet/freedom/example/http2/adapter/controller			1						2						1
28 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example										1									1
29 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/infra/domainevent									7										1			2						2
30 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/adapter/repository							2		1							2			1		2
31 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain/po																						7						7
32 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/infra/domainevent									7										1			2						2
33 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain				2					2								1				2	3
34 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain/entity									6													6	1					6
35 com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/adapter/controller									3									3			1				3
36 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain/dependency		1																								6
37 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/adapter/repository		1							3											2			7	3		6	6
38 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain/aggregate									7													6		6		10	22	6
39 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain		5							4				1											2			4		4
40 com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/adapter/controller									5					5																5

Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 90% · Strong ·

The Good

D1 · Go Cyclomatic Complexity 8.3 D2 · Go Cognitive Complexity 7.7 D3 · Go God Classes 9.1 D4 · Go Code Duplication 7.8 D17 · Go Explicit Debt 10.0

At a glance — Architecture · 80% · Strong ·

The Good

D6 · Go Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.0 D35 · Go Change Coupling 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

The Bad

D27 · Go Navigability 6.4 AX10 · Repo Code composition 5.2

At a glance — Maturity · 57% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Go Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · Go Documentation Quality 9.0 D21 · Go Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Go Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Bad

M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.0

The Ugly

D20 · Go ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 35% · Weak · gated by P1, P3 ·

The Good

D9 · Go Test Distribution 10.0 D11 · Go Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · Go Dependency Hygiene 9.4 D13 · Go Secret Scanning 10.0

The Bad

P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

The Ugly

P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 88% · Strong ·

The Good

D28 · Go Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · Go Dependency Vulnerabilities 9.1 D31 · Go IaC & Container Security 10.0 D43 · Go Malicious Dependencies 10.0

The Ugly

D29 · Go Static Analysis (SAST) 4.7

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 70% · Adequate ·

The Good

DM10 · Repo One transaction, one aggregate 8.0 DM11 · Repo Constructible invalid state 10.0 DM12 · Repo Ambient inputs in the domain 10.0 DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic model 10.0 DM7 · Repo Repository granularity 10.0 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 10.0

The Bad

DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 5.2

The Ugly

DM1 · Repo Aggregate boundaries 4.2

At a glance — Event-Driven · 91% · Exemplary ·

The Good

ED1 · Repo Handler temporal coupling 10.0 ED2 · Repo Event/command shape 10.0 ED3 · Repo Event naming 7.0 ED4 · Repo Outbox / dual-write 7.9

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 category	Findings	Severity
A03:2021 — Injection	16	REDACTED
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	5	REDACTED

Roadmap

First, establish a CI workflow that builds and runs tests on every push to ensure code quality. Integrate security scanning into this pipeline to fail the build on regressions, while gating releases behind manual approval to prevent bad builds from reaching users. Finally, maintain a changelog for release hygiene and document key architectural decisions to preserve institutional knowledge.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.	+15.6 pts	REDACTED	CI/CD gates
Run what this repository's stack ships: gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.	+15.6 pts	REDACTED	Security & performance tooling
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.	+15.2 pts	REDACTED	Deployment & Rollback
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.	+15.2 pts	REDACTED	Release Hygiene
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+5.2 pts	REDACTED	ADR Quality
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).	+5.3 pts	REDACTED	Architecture documentation
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.	+5.3 pts	REDACTED	Documentation (README)
Reference other aggregates by their strongly-typed id, never by object reference, so each aggregate stays an independent consistency boundary.	+2.2 pts	REDACTED	Aggregate boundaries

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 43 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 51% mixed · 49% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	4.0	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.0	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.9	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: REDACTED CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.7	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: requests.readSetCookies (cyclomatic 28)
REDACTED	6.9	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go	7.0	Mixed	Code Duplication: Edited copy of a member (29 corresponding lines)
example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go	7.0	Mixed	Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens)
example/fshop/adapter/repository/goods.go	7.0	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (7 lines × 3)
example/fshop/adapter/repository/order.go	7.0	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (7 lines × 2)
internal/factory_pool.go	7.0	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: factoryPool.diFactoryFromValue (cyclomatic 21)
example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go	7.0	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (42 lines × 2)
example/base/config/config.go	7.1	Mixed	Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)
example/base/infra/request.go	7.1	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (15 lines × 3)
internal/util.go	7.4	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: internal.ConvertAssign (cyclomatic 52)
middleware/request_logger.go	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: requestLoggerMiddleware.ServeHTTP (cyclomatic 20)
internal/infra_pool.go	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)
internal/infra.go	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (13 lines × 2)
REDACTED	7.9	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.9	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.9	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 6

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 132

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 35

Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.

Could not be resolved — 43

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

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. 42 of 45 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — 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 — 45 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D6D9D11D12D13D15D17D19D20D21D27D28D29D30D31D34D35D43AX10AX5AX9DM1DM10DM11DM12DM4DM6DM7DM8ED1ED2ED3ED4M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P6

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

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, 154 of 173 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.)
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.
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.

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0c1c3-706e-7cbc-ad1f-0f54d1047b11.

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.

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.go) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D14 License Compliance — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (a Go module (REDACTED/go.sum)), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (9 contributor(s) across 305 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 95% of the history; the other 8 hold 0.6% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: D22 has no public-API collector for any other ecosystem, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (REDACTED, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
AX3 Project dependency cycles — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over which project references which — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX8 Test isolation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over which projects are test projects, and what they reference — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
DM9 Scattered domain decisions — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not measured — scattered-decision detection needs expression-level symbol resolution: a comparison operand bound to the member it judges (arm one) and a construction bound to the type it produces (arm two). A Roslyn compilation carries both; arm two alone also runs on any frontend that declares whether a construction is produced or passed, and this target loaded neither.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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.

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so 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.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
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.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
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").
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. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
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.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
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 on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
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.
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.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
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.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
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; each names its own sample and method on its card. They 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

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.

Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

5 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was internal.ConvertAssign at 52.

internal.ConvertAssign (cyclomatic 52)internal/util.go:77

requests.readSetCookies (cyclomatic 28)REDACTED:85

crud.lintName (cyclomatic 21)REDACTED:540

factoryPool.diFactoryFromValue (cyclomatic 21)internal/factory_pool.go:58

requestLoggerMiddleware.ServeHTTP (cyclomatic 20)middleware/request_logger.go:45

What to do

Resolve the 1 internal.ConvertAssign (cyclomatic 52) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with util.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 requests.readSetCookies (cyclomatic 28) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 crud.lintName (cyclomatic 21) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cyclomatic Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity7.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.

Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

9 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was internal.ConvertAssign at 67.

internal.ConvertAssign (cognitive 67)internal/util.go:77

requests.readSetCookies (cognitive 48)REDACTED:85

factoryPool.diFactoryFromValue (cognitive 36)internal/factory_pool.go:58

crud.lintName (cognitive 29)REDACTED:540

repositoryPool.diRepoFromValue (cognitive 29)internal/repo_pool.go:51

+ 4 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 1 internal.ConvertAssign (cognitive 67) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with util.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 requests.readSetCookies (cognitive 48) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 factoryPool.diFactoryFromValue (cognitive 36) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with factory_pool.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cognitive Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes9.1 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").

Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.

TooManyMethods: httpRequest · ×2infra/requests/http_request.go:24

FunctionTooLong: internal.ConvertAssigninternal/util.go:77

What to do

Resolve the 2 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with http_request.go, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with util.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate God Classes in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication7.8 / 10Strong✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

74 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 9 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. 69 of the 83 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×7REDACTED:384

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×5internal/infra_pool.go:52

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×5freedom/cmd/new_po.go:176

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×5internal/factory_pool.go:25

Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×5example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:157

+ 41 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 7 Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with REDACTED (2), infra.go, entity_cache.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with REDACTED (4), infra_pool.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with REDACTED (3), new_po.go, event_retry.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Duplication in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.

Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

6 of 69 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

REDACTED cohesion: GoodsRepository (LCOM4 5) · ×6example/fshop/adapter/repository/goods.go:30

What to do

Resolve the 6 REDACTED cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with goods.go (2), order.go (2), user.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cohesion (LCOM4) in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

47 test methods: 47 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Go suite contributes 47 test case(s) across 15 `_test.go` file(s) declaring at least one — every `func Test…(t *testing.T)` that `go test` would collect, plus the suite methods a testify-style runner reaches; a table-driven case list counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is INFERRED from file names, paths and build constraints, not declared: 9 of those file(s) use Go's external test package (`package x_test`), which is a visibility boundary rather than a pyramid tier and was not read as one.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.

Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). Go (github.com/8treenet/freedom): measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.

Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

11 outdated, 0 author-deprecated direct Go module(s), 0 pinning or checksum defect(s). Whether any of these modules is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — proxy.golang.org publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: that is a source question, not a registry one. Known CVEs in this module graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED and go.sum there.

Outdated: github.com/8treenet/iris/v12 · ×11

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 deducted task-comment markers across 15019 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×2profile.go:28

What to do

Resolve the 2 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with profile.go, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Explicit Debt in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The documentation is clear and complete for a Go framework project: the README provides excellent usage examples (NewHTTPRequest, SetQueryParam, ToJSON) with code blocks showing both direct creation and Repository integration; an architecture/ddd guide covers domain structure (entity/, aggregate/, dependency/) with naming conventions, core requirements, business behavior, event publishing, and best practices. The two documents are well-organized with a full outline for each, making the gaps visible only when clipped. (9 of 11 sampled documents could not be assessed: 1 of 2 evaluation groups failed.)

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).

Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability6.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

63 % of calls cross a namespace and 43 % go through an interface, but 53 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

High interface indirection

Scattered collaborators

What to do

Resolve the 1 High interface indirection finding(s) in Navigability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Scattered collaborators finding(s) in Navigability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)4.7 / 10Weak✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

16 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 14 medium, 2 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 14 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities9.1 / 10Stronggated by 5 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir/Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex, Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 3 REDACTED CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 REDACTED vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

trivy and checkov found no infrastructure-as-code or container misconfigurations.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 34 of the 62 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D43 · Malicious Dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.

Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition5.2 / 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. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX9 · CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.

Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.

Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM1 · Aggregate boundaries4.2 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates reference each other by identity (id) rather than by direct object reference — the core DDD consistency-boundary rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): aggregate roots identified by convention; each aggregate field checked for direct references to other aggregates versus id-only. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: aggregate roots identified by AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot base/interface NAME convention; reference-by-identity then checked exhaustively within that set — a root not using those names is invisible.

`CartAddCmd` references the aggregate root `Goods` directly (via `goods`) — hold its `GoodsId` instead. — example/fshop/domain/aggregate/cart_add_cmd.go:13
`CartShopCmd` references the aggregate root `User` directly (via `userEntity`) — hold its `UserId` instead. — example/fshop/domain/aggregate/cart_shop_cmd.go:22
`GoodsShopCmd` references the aggregate root `User` directly (via `userEntity`) — hold its `UserId` instead. — example/fshop/domain/aggregate/goods_shop_cmd.go:17
`DeliveryCmd` references the aggregate root `Admin` directly (via `adminEntity`) — hold its `AdminId` instead. — example/fshop/domain/aggregate/order_delivery_cmd.go:14
`OrderPayCmd` references the aggregate root `User` directly (via `userEntity`) — hold its `UserId` instead. — example/fshop/domain/aggregate/order_pay_cmd.go:14

What to do

Reference other aggregates by their strongly-typed id, never by object reference, so each aggregate stays an independent consistency boundary.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM10 · One transaction, one aggregate8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether a single operation mutates more than one aggregate root. An aggregate is a consistency boundary, so saving two together fuses them into one — the second's invariants come to depend on the first's transaction, and the pair can no longer be separated. Reads of other aggregates are not counted.

Method: Neutral body surface (DDD-gated): every method body scanned for repository WRITE calls (Add/Update/Save/Remove/Delete/Insert/Store and their async forms), keyed on the ARGUMENT type rather than the repository type — three `IRepository<T>` writes collapse to one repository but are three distinct aggregates. Reads (Get/Find/Load/Query) are excluded, so loading another aggregate for context never counts. Score is offending methods over methods that write at all. Deterministic.

`CartShopCmd.Shop` saves `Goods`, `Order` in a single operation. Each is its own consistency boundary, so committing them together makes the second's invariants depend on the first's transaction, holds a lock across both for the whole operation, and means the pair can no longer be separated — into different services, or different databases. Mutate one aggregate here and let the others follow from a domain event. — example/fshop/domain/aggregate/cart_shop_cmd.go:28
`GoodsShopCmd.Shop` saves `Goods`, `Order` in a single operation. Each is its own consistency boundary, so committing them together makes the second's invariants depend on the first's transaction, holds a lock across both for the whole operation, and means the pair can no longer be separated — into different services, or different databases. Mutate one aggregate here and let the others follow from a domain event. — example/fshop/domain/aggregate/goods_shop_cmd.go:27
`DeliveryCmd.Run` saves `Order`, `Delivery` in a single operation. Each is its own consistency boundary, so committing them together makes the second's invariants depend on the first's transaction, holds a lock across both for the whole operation, and means the pair can no longer be separated — into different services, or different databases. Mutate one aggregate here and let the others follow from a domain event. — example/fshop/domain/aggregate/order_delivery_cmd.go:21
`OrderPayCmd.Pay` saves `Order`, `User` in a single operation. Each is its own consistency boundary, so committing them together makes the second's invariants depend on the first's transaction, holds a lock across both for the whole operation, and means the pair can no longer be separated — into different services, or different databases. Mutate one aggregate here and let the others follow from a domain event. — example/fshop/domain/aggregate/order_pay_cmd.go:22

What to do

Mutate one aggregate per operation and let the others follow from a domain event — the second aggregate reaching consistency a moment later is the design, not a compromise.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM11 · Constructible invalid state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether an aggregate can be constructed in a state its own rules forbid — a public constructor that takes a raw primitive, stores it, and validates nothing, with no factory beside it. A constructor taking only value objects is not counted: each parameter has already validated itself.

Method: Neutral surface (DDD-gated): each non-abstract entity/aggregate checked for a PUBLIC constructor taking at least one RAW PRIMITIVE parameter whose body contains no guard token (throw / Guard. / Ensure. / ArgumentException / CheckRule), on a type that also offers no static Create/Of/From/New factory. A constructor taking only value objects is never charged -- measured: 64 of 87 unguarded public constructors on the C# corpus take value objects only, so ignoring parameter types would be 73% false positives. One finding per entity. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM12 · Ambient inputs in the domain10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether domain types receive the time and randomness their rules depend on, rather than reading the process clock or a global random source directly — an ambient read makes the rule it feeds untestable at the instant that matters and lets two reads inside one operation disagree.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated, C#/VB only): domain-layer types scanned for ambient reads — DateTime/DateTimeOffset.Now/UtcNow/Today, Random.Shared, new Random(), Stopwatch.GetTimestamp — resolved against the semantic model, with a comment/string-stripped token fallback only where resolution fails. Body reads are scored; field/property initialisers are surfaced unscored. Apply/When folds excluded (ES1 owns them). Deterministic, symbol-resolved.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates/entities carry the behaviour that protects their invariants, rather than being data bags driven by external services.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.

Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary5.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies (EF/Marten/HTTP/ASP.NET) — the clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/base/domain` imports `pkg:adapter` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port. — example/base/domain/default.go:6
The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain/aggregate` imports `pkg:infra` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port. (×2) — example/fshop/domain/aggregate/order_factory.go:6, example/fshop/domain/aggregate/shop_factory.go:7
The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain` imports `pkg:infra` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port. (×2) — example/fshop/domain/goods.go:11, example/fshop/domain/user.go:6
The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/http2/domain` imports `pkg:adapter` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port. — example/http2/domain/shop.go:7
The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain/event` imports `pkg:infra` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port. — example/infra-example/domain/event/shop_goods.go:6
The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain` imports `pkg:adapter` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port. (×2) — example/infra-example/domain/goods.go:5, example/infra-example/domain/order.go:7
The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain` imports `pkg:infra` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port. (×2) — example/infra-example/domain/goods.go:8, example/infra-example/domain/order.go:10

What to do

Invert domain→infrastructure dependencies: declare interfaces in the domain, implement them in infrastructure (Dependency Inversion).

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM7 · Repository granularity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether repositories are per aggregate root (not per child entity) and keep the persistence query handle behind the contract, so the root's invariants can't be bypassed.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): repository abstraction detection; repositories over non-aggregate-root entities flagged, and (C#/VB) repository INTERFACES whose members return a live persistence query handle (IQueryable/DbSet/IMongoQueryable) — implementations and specification evaluators are out of population by design, since composing a query internally is what an implementation is for. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: repositories + aggregate roots by NAME convention; per-root repository rule checked within the set.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM8 · Value-object opportunities10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED1 · Handler temporal coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether event handlers stay asynchronous (no blocking remote HTTP/gRPC calls awaited inside a handler).

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler bodies scanned for HTTP/gRPC invocations by resolved symbol type, not substring. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED2 · Event/command shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether commands have a single handler (one owner of the decision) and fan-out is modelled with events.

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): command-shaped messages identified by convention; handler count per command checked for the exactly-one rule. Deterministic, hard fact.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED3 · Event naming7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether events are named in the past tense (a clarity nudge — low weight).

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): domain and integration events checked for past-tense naming (-ed/-en suffix or irregular set). Naming nudge, low-weight advisory.

`ChangePassword` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — example/fshop/domain/event/change_password.go:6
`ShopGoods` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. (×2) — example/fshop/domain/event/shop_goods.go:6, example/infra-example/domain/event/shop_goods.go:15
`OrderPay` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — example/infra-example/domain/event/order.go:4

What to do

Name events in the past tense — they record facts that already happened.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED4 · Outbox / dual-write7.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether state changes and message publishes are atomic (a transactional outbox) rather than a crash-unsafe dual write.

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler methods scanned for DB-save plus bus-publish without a transactional outbox reference. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

`OrderRepository.Pay` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern — write the message to an outbox table in the SAME transaction as the state change, and dispatch it from there afterwards — or your platform's equivalent (a broker transaction, or an outbox library from your own ecosystem). — example/infra-example/adapter/repository/order.go:74

What to do

Adopt the transactional outbox pattern so DB writes and message publishes commit atomically — no lost or phantom events on a crash.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.

Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

What to do

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.

Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.

What to do

Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).

Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Run what this repository's stack ships: gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

What to do

Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

What to do

Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	90%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	80%	Strong	Solid.
Maturity	57%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	35%	Weak — gated by P1, P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	88%	Strong	Solid.
Domain Modelling	70%	Adequate	Acceptable, with room to improve.
Event-Driven	91%	Exemplary	Strongest area.

Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.

C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 81 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.

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~894 lines of test source are present (.go) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D14 License Compliance — Package manifest not parsed for licence data — analyzer language-coverage gap
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.go) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. 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"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); 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.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
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.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
DM5 Encapsulated state — no domain entities found — DM5 grades how entities protect their state, and this repository declares none
DM9 Scattered domain decisions — not measured — scattered-decision detection needs expression-level symbol resolution: a comparison operand bound to the member it judges (arm one) and a construction bound to the type it produces (arm two). A Roslyn compilation carries both; arm two alone also runs on any frontend that declares whether a construction is produced or passed, and this target loaded neither
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (8 Go aggregate(s) recording domain events (own events-slice append / raise-record))
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

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.

Critical — 6 finding(s)

DM1 · Aggregate boundaries · Aggregate holds a reference to another aggregate · ×5

Aggregate holds a reference to another aggregate: CartAddCmd.goods example/fshop/domain/aggregate/cart_add_cmd.go:13 — `CartAddCmd` references the aggregate root `Goods` directly (via `goods`) — hold its `GoodsId` instead.
Aggregate holds a reference to another aggregate: CartShopCmd.userEntity example/fshop/domain/aggregate/cart_shop_cmd.go:22 — `CartShopCmd` references the aggregate root `User` directly (via `userEntity`) — hold its `UserId` instead.
Aggregate holds a reference to another aggregate: GoodsShopCmd.userEntity example/fshop/domain/aggregate/goods_shop_cmd.go:17 — `GoodsShopCmd` references the aggregate root `User` directly (via `userEntity`) — hold its `UserId` instead.
Aggregate holds a reference to another aggregate: DeliveryCmd.adminEntity example/fshop/domain/aggregate/order_delivery_cmd.go:14 — `DeliveryCmd` references the aggregate root `Admin` directly (via `adminEntity`) — hold its `AdminId` instead.
Aggregate holds a reference to another aggregate: OrderPayCmd.userEntity example/fshop/domain/aggregate/order_pay_cmd.go:14 — `OrderPayCmd` references the aggregate root `User` directly (via `userEntity`) — hold its `UserId` instead.

ED4 · Outbox / dual-write · Dual write (no outbox) · ×1

Dual write (no outbox): OrderRepository.Pay example/infra-example/adapter/repository/order.go:74 — `OrderRepository.Pay` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern — write the message to an outbox table in the SAME transaction as the state change, and dispatch it from there afterwards — or your platform's equivalent (a broker transaction, or an outbox library from your own ecosystem).

Serious — 132 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×14

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×7

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) REDACTED:384 — REDACTED:384-393 | REDACTED:472-481 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:384` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, 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. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) internal/infra.go:29 — internal/infra.go:29-38 | internal/repository.go:53-62 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) infra/store/entity_cache.go:107 — infra/store/entity_cache.go:107-116 | infra/store/entity_cache.go:136-145 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `infra/store/entity_cache.go:107` it does not close everything it opens, 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. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:67 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:67-76 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:67-76 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:88 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:88-97 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:82-91 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 134 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:88` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, 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.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:33 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:33-42 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:33-42 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) example/base/main.go:20 — example/base/main.go:20-39 | example/http2/main.go:11-20 — 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.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · REDACTED cohesion · ×6

REDACTED cohesion: GoodsRepository (LCOM4 5) example/fshop/adapter/repository/goods.go:30 — GoodsRepository's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
REDACTED cohesion: OrderRepository (LCOM4 5) example/fshop/adapter/repository/order.go:29 — OrderRepository's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
REDACTED cohesion: UserRepository (LCOM4 5) example/fshop/adapter/repository/user.go:29 — UserRepository's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
REDACTED cohesion: GoodsRepository (LCOM4 4) example/infra-example/adapter/repository/goods.go:21 — GoodsRepository's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
REDACTED cohesion: OrderRepository (LCOM4 4) example/infra-example/adapter/repository/order.go:26 — OrderRepository's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
REDACTED cohesion: Application (LCOM4 4) REDACTED:40 — Application's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) internal/infra_pool.go:52 — internal/infra_pool.go:52-65 | internal/infra_pool.go:78-91 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `internal/infra_pool.go:52` it does not close everything it opens, 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.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:538 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:538-551 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:236-249 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:555 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:555-568 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:253-266 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:695 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:695-708 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:428-441 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:712 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:712-725 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:445-458 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) freedom/cmd/new_po.go:176 — freedom/cmd/new_po.go:176-186 | REDACTED:649-659 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:53 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:53-63 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:53-63 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:593 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:593-603 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:314-324 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:750 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:750-760 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:506-516 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:21 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:21-31 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:21-31 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) internal/factory_pool.go:25 — internal/factory_pool.go:25-31 | internal/repo_pool.go:21-27 — before extracting anything, compare `internal/factory_pool.go` and `internal/repo_pool.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `internal/factory_pool.go:25` it does not close everything it opens, 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.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:141 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:141-147 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:141-147 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/order.go:16 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/order.go:16-23 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/order.go:17-23 — 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.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:99 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:99-105 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:93-99 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 134 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/controller/user.go:41 — example/fshop/adapter/controller/user.go:41-47 | example/infra-example/adapter/controller/goods.go:36-42 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×5

Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:157 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:157-170 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:314-327 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:471-484 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:628-641 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:785-798 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:942-955 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:1099-1112 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:157-170 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:349-362 — These 9 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 9 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 9 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:185 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:185-202 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:342-359 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:499-516 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:656-673 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:813-830 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:970-987 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:1127-1144 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:197-214 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:389-406 — These 9 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 9 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 9 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:205 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:205-220 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:362-377 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:519-534 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:676-691 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:833-848 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:990-1005 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:1147-1162 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:217-232 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:409-424 — These 9 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 9 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 9 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:240 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:240-257 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:397-414 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:554-571 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:711-728 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:868-885 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:1025-1042 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:1182-1199 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:252-269 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:444-461 — These 9 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 9 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 9 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:292 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:292-311 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:449-468 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:606-625 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:763-782 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:920-939 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:1077-1096 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:1234-1253 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:327-346 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:519-538 — These 9 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 9 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 9 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:608 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:608-625 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:329-346 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:608` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, 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. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:765 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:765-782 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:521-538 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:765` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, 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. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:154 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:154-171 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:148-165 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 134 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:119 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:119-136 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:119-136 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

DM10 · One transaction, one aggregate · One operation mutates 2 aggregates · ×4

One operation mutates 2 aggregates: CartShopCmd.Shop example/fshop/domain/aggregate/cart_shop_cmd.go:28 — `CartShopCmd.Shop` saves `Goods`, `Order` in a single operation. Each is its own consistency boundary, so committing them together makes the second's invariants depend on the first's transaction, holds a lock across both for the whole operation, and means the pair can no longer be separated — into different services, or different databases. Mutate one aggregate here and let the others follow from a domain event.
One operation mutates 2 aggregates: GoodsShopCmd.Shop example/fshop/domain/aggregate/goods_shop_cmd.go:27 — `GoodsShopCmd.Shop` saves `Goods`, `Order` in a single operation. Each is its own consistency boundary, so committing them together makes the second's invariants depend on the first's transaction, holds a lock across both for the whole operation, and means the pair can no longer be separated — into different services, or different databases. Mutate one aggregate here and let the others follow from a domain event.
One operation mutates 2 aggregates: DeliveryCmd.Run example/fshop/domain/aggregate/order_delivery_cmd.go:21 — `DeliveryCmd.Run` saves `Order`, `Delivery` in a single operation. Each is its own consistency boundary, so committing them together makes the second's invariants depend on the first's transaction, holds a lock across both for the whole operation, and means the pair can no longer be separated — into different services, or different databases. Mutate one aggregate here and let the others follow from a domain event.
One operation mutates 2 aggregates: OrderPayCmd.Pay example/fshop/domain/aggregate/order_pay_cmd.go:22 — `OrderPayCmd.Pay` saves `Order`, `User` in a single operation. Each is its own consistency boundary, so committing them together makes the second's invariants depend on the first's transaction, holds a lock across both for the whole operation, and means the pair can no longer be separated — into different services, or different databases. Mutate one aggregate here and let the others follow from a domain event.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED CVE · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) internal/service_locator.go:36 — internal/service_locator.go:36-43 | internal/unit.go:105-112 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:66 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:66-73 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:59-66 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 134 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:66` it does not close everything it opens, 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. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:12 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:12-19 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:12-19 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×2

TodoComment profile.go:28 — // TODO(coco): this variable seems has no effect, considering remove it. — 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.
TodoComment REDACTED:75 — // TODO(coco): — 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.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×2

TooManyMethods: httpRequest infra/requests/http_request.go:24 — TooManyMethods — 43 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 13 over it, 1.43× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Application REDACTED:40 — TooManyMethods — 42 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 12 over it, 1.40× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED vulnerability · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) internal/unit.go:47 — internal/unit.go:47-52 | internal/unit.go:65-70 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `internal/unit.go:54` calls `Interface` and `internal/unit.go:72` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:149 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:149-154 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:149-154 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Edited copy of a member (29 corresponding lines) · ×2

Edited copy of a member (29 corresponding lines) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:88 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:88-116 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:88-116 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 29 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.
Edited copy of a member (29 corresponding lines) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:138 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:138-166 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:138-166 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 29 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) example/base/config/config.go:51 — example/base/config/config.go:51-71 | example/fshop/config/config.go:51-71 | example/http2/config/config.go:51-71 | example/infra-example/config/config.go:51-71 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) example/base/config/config.go:18 — example/base/config/config.go:18-49 | example/fshop/config/config.go:18-49 | example/http2/config/config.go:18-49 | example/infra-example/config/config.go:18-49 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:92 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:92-116 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:92-116 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:92` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, 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.
Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:142 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:142-166 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:142-166 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:142` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:575 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:575-589 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:273-287 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:732 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:732-746 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:465-479 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 9) · ×2

Duplicated block (13 lines × 9) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:190 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:190-202 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:347-359 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:504-516 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:661-673 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:818-830 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:975-987 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:1132-1144 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:202-214 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:394-406 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:190` 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. 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.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 9) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:245 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:245-257 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:402-414 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:559-571 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:716-728 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:873-885 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:1030-1042 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:1187-1199 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:257-269 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:449-461 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:245` 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. 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:472 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:472-483 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:158-169 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:629 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:629-640 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:350-361 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–12 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (10–12 lines × 2) example/fshop/domain/goods.go:17 — example/fshop/domain/goods.go:17-28 | example/infra-example/domain/goods.go:12-21 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (10–12 lines × 2) example/fshop/domain/order.go:12 — example/fshop/domain/order.go:12-23 | example/infra-example/domain/order.go:14-23 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (47 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (47 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_pub.go:10 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_pub.go:10-56 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_pub.go:10-56 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_pub.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_pub.go` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (47 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_sub.go:10 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_sub.go:10-56 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_sub.go:10-56 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_sub.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_sub.go` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) example/base/infra/request.go:55 — example/base/infra/request.go:55-63 | example/fshop/infra/request.go:55-63 | example/infra-example/infra/request.go:55-63 — before extracting anything, compare `example/base/infra/request.go` and `example/fshop/infra/request.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 56 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) example/base/infra/request.go:66 — example/base/infra/request.go:66-74 | example/fshop/infra/request.go:66-74 | example/infra-example/infra/request.go:66-74 — before extracting anything, compare `example/base/infra/request.go` and `example/fshop/infra/request.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 56 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · internal.ConvertAssign (cyclomatic 52) · ×1

internal.ConvertAssign (cyclomatic 52) internal/util.go:77 — internal.ConvertAssign has cyclomatic complexity 52 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · requests.readSetCookies (cyclomatic 28) · ×1

requests.readSetCookies (cyclomatic 28) REDACTED:85 — requests.readSetCookies has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · crud.lintName (cyclomatic 21) · ×1

crud.lintName (cyclomatic 21) REDACTED:540 — crud.lintName has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · factoryPool.diFactoryFromValue (cyclomatic 21) · ×1

factoryPool.diFactoryFromValue (cyclomatic 21) internal/factory_pool.go:58 — factoryPool.diFactoryFromValue has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). Of this number, 11 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · requestLoggerMiddleware.ServeHTTP (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

requestLoggerMiddleware.ServeHTTP (cyclomatic 20) middleware/request_logger.go:45 — requestLoggerMiddleware.ServeHTTP has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · internal.ConvertAssign (cognitive 67) · ×1

internal.ConvertAssign (cognitive 67) internal/util.go:77 — internal.ConvertAssign has cognitive complexity 67 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (50 pts), match/switch 9 (15 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 33). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · requests.readSetCookies (cognitive 48) · ×1

requests.readSetCookies (cognitive 48) REDACTED:85 — requests.readSetCookies has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (35 pts), match/switch 2 (7 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 29). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · factoryPool.diFactoryFromValue (cognitive 36) · ×1

factoryPool.diFactoryFromValue (cognitive 36) internal/factory_pool.go:58 — factoryPool.diFactoryFromValue has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (30 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 18). Of this number, 19 points are the body's own statements and 17 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · crud.lintName (cognitive 29) · ×1

crud.lintName (cognitive 29) REDACTED:540 — crud.lintName has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (19 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · repositoryPool.diRepoFromValue (cognitive 29) · ×1

repositoryPool.diRepoFromValue (cognitive 29) internal/repo_pool.go:51 — repositoryPool.diRepoFromValue has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (25 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 15). Of this number, 19 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Generate.schema (cognitive 28) · ×1

Generate.schema (cognitive 28) REDACTED:220 — Generate.schema has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (20 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · requestLoggerMiddleware.ServeHTTP (cognitive 27) · ×1

requestLoggerMiddleware.ServeHTTP (cognitive 27) middleware/request_logger.go:45 — requestLoggerMiddleware.ServeHTTP has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (19 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WorkerPool.worker (cognitive 18) · ×1

WorkerPool.worker (cognitive 18) infra/kafka/consumer.go:107 — WorkerPool.worker has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 2 (8 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Generate.getColumnsPostgres (cognitive 17) · ×1

Generate.getColumnsPostgres (cognitive 17) REDACTED:396 — Generate.getColumnsPostgres has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), loops 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×1

FunctionTooLong: internal.ConvertAssign internal/util.go:77 — FunctionTooLong — ConvertAssign runs 144 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 44 over it, 1.44× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25–27 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (25–27 lines × 2) internal/factory_pool.go:65 — internal/factory_pool.go:65-91 | internal/factory_pool.go:104-128 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `internal/factory_pool.go:65` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24–26 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (24–26 lines × 2) internal/factory_pool.go:79 — internal/factory_pool.go:79-104 | internal/repo_pool.go:64-87 — before extracting anything, compare `internal/factory_pool.go` and `internal/repo_pool.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `internal/factory_pool.go:79` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) internal/infra.go:93 — internal/infra.go:93-105 | internal/repository.go:120-132 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `internal/infra.go:93` 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. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `Entity` to `infra *Infra) InjectBaseEntity(entity` in one and `repo *Repository) InjectBaseEntity(entity` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) internal/factory_pool.go:71 — internal/factory_pool.go:71-76 | internal/factory_pool.go:110-115 | internal/service_pool.go:97-102 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) internal/factory_pool.go:61 — internal/factory_pool.go:61-69 | internal/repo_pool.go:54-62 — before extracting anything, compare `internal/factory_pool.go` and `internal/repo_pool.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) internal/infra_pool.go:38 — internal/infra_pool.go:38-43 | internal/service_pool.go:88-92 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `internal/infra_pool.go:38` it does not close everything it opens, 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (42 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (42 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:109 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:109-150 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:103-144 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 134 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (32 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (32 lines × 4) example/base/config/config.go:18 — example/base/config/config.go:18-49 | example/fshop/config/config.go:18-49 | example/http2/config/config.go:18-49 | example/infra-example/config/config.go:18-49 — before extracting anything, compare `example/base/config/config.go` and `example/fshop/config/config.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 65 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (31–32 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (31–32 lines × 3) example/base/infra/response.go:21 — example/base/infra/response.go:21-51 | example/fshop/infra/response.go:21-52 | example/infra-example/infra/response.go:21-52 — before extracting anything, compare `example/base/infra/response.go` and `example/fshop/infra/response.go` as WHOLE FILES: 97% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:92 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:92-120 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:92-120 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:190 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:190-217 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:184-211 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 134 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:16 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:16-39 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:16-39 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:45 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:45-66 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:45-66 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (20 lines × 4) example/base/config/config.go:52 — example/base/config/config.go:52-71 | example/fshop/config/config.go:52-71 | example/http2/config/config.go:52-71 | example/infra-example/config/config.go:52-71 — before extracting anything, compare `example/base/config/config.go` and `example/fshop/config/config.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 65 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:187 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:187-206 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:187-206 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:169 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:169-184 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:169-184 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) example/base/infra/request.go:78 — example/base/infra/request.go:78-92 | example/fshop/infra/request.go:78-92 | example/infra-example/infra/request.go:78-92 — before extracting anything, compare `example/base/infra/request.go` and `example/fshop/infra/request.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 56 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:39 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:39-52 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:39-50 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 134 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:55` calls `GetPublisherChan` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:53` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) example/base/infra/request.go:41 — example/base/infra/request.go:41-52 | example/fshop/infra/request.go:41-52 | example/infra-example/infra/request.go:41-52 — before extracting anything, compare `example/base/infra/request.go` and `example/fshop/infra/request.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 56 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `example/base/infra/request.go:41` 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. 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 9) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 9) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:210 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:210-220 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:367-377 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:524-534 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:681-691 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:838-848 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:995-1005 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:1152-1162 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:222-232 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:414-424 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:210` 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. 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) example/base/infra/request.go:16 — example/base/infra/request.go:16-26 | example/fshop/infra/request.go:16-26 | example/infra-example/infra/request.go:16-26 — before extracting anything, compare `example/base/infra/request.go` and `example/fshop/infra/request.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 56 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 9) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 9) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:293 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:293-302 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:450-459 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:607-616 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:764-773 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:921-930 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:1078-1087 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:1235-1244 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:328-337 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:520-529 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:293` it does not close everything it opens, 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. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 9) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 9) example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:162 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:162-170 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:319-327 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:476-484 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:633-641 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:790-798 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:947-955 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:1104-1112 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:162-170 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go:354-362 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go` and `example/infra-example/adapter/repository/generate.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 23 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 311 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `example/fshop/adapter/repository/generate.go:162` 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. 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:101 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:101-106 | example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:151-156 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:101-106 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:151-156 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_retry.go:101` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (45 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (45 lines × 2) example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_transaction.go:8 — example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_transaction.go:8-52 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_transaction.go:8-52 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_transaction.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_transaction.go` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 12) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 12) example/base/adapter/repository/default.go:36 — example/base/adapter/repository/default.go:36-42 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/admin.go:42-48 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/cart.go:82-88 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/delivery.go:49-55 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/goods.go:126-132 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/order.go:156-162 | example/fshop/adapter/repository/user.go:82-88 | example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:220-226 | example/http2/adapter/repository/goods.go:43-49 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/goods.go:66-72 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/order.go:97-103 | example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go:214-220 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` and `example/infra-example/infra/domainevent/event_manager.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 134 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) example/base/config/config.go:74 — example/base/config/config.go:74-86 | example/fshop/config/config.go:74-86 | example/http2/config/config.go:74-86 | example/infra-example/config/config.go:74-86 — before extracting anything, compare `example/base/config/config.go` and `example/fshop/config/config.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 65 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) example/fshop/adapter/repository/goods.go:17 — example/fshop/adapter/repository/goods.go:17-24 | example/http2/adapter/repository/goods.go:11-17 | example/infra-example/adapter/repository/goods.go:12-18 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 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 3 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) example/fshop/domain/event/change_password.go:20 — example/fshop/domain/event/change_password.go:20-29 | example/fshop/domain/event/shop_goods.go:22-31 | example/infra-example/domain/event/shop_goods.go:30-39 — before extracting anything, compare `example/fshop/domain/event/shop_goods.go` and `example/infra-example/domain/event/shop_goods.go` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

P1 · CI/CD gates · No CI pipeline · ×1

No CI pipeline — No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.

Minor — 24 finding(s)

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary · Domain depends on infrastructure · ×11

Domain depends on infrastructure: domain example/base/domain/default.go:6 — The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/base/domain` imports `pkg:adapter` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port.
Domain depends on infrastructure: aggregate example/fshop/domain/aggregate/order_factory.go:6 — The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain/aggregate` imports `pkg:infra` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port.
Domain depends on infrastructure: aggregate example/fshop/domain/aggregate/shop_factory.go:7 — The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain/aggregate` imports `pkg:infra` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port.
Domain depends on infrastructure: domain example/fshop/domain/goods.go:11 — The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain` imports `pkg:infra` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port.
Domain depends on infrastructure: domain example/fshop/domain/user.go:6 — The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/fshop/domain` imports `pkg:infra` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port.
Domain depends on infrastructure: domain example/http2/domain/shop.go:7 — The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/http2/domain` imports `pkg:adapter` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port.
Domain depends on infrastructure: event example/infra-example/domain/event/shop_goods.go:6 — The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain/event` imports `pkg:infra` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port.
Domain depends on infrastructure: domain example/infra-example/domain/goods.go:5 — The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain` imports `pkg:adapter` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port.
Domain depends on infrastructure: domain example/infra-example/domain/order.go:7 — The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain` imports `pkg:adapter` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port.
Domain depends on infrastructure: domain example/infra-example/domain/goods.go:8 — The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain` imports `pkg:infra` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port.
Domain depends on infrastructure: domain example/infra-example/domain/order.go:10 — The domain package `github.com/8treenet/freedom/example/infra-example/domain` imports `pkg:infra` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port.

ED3 · Event naming · Event not named in past tense · ×4

Event not named in past tense: ChangePassword example/fshop/domain/event/change_password.go:6 — `ChangePassword` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear.
Event not named in past tense: ShopGoods example/fshop/domain/event/shop_goods.go:6 — `ShopGoods` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear.
Event not named in past tense: OrderPay example/infra-example/domain/event/order.go:4 — `OrderPay` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear.
Event not named in past tense: ShopGoods example/infra-example/domain/event/shop_goods.go:15 — `ShopGoods` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.

D27 · Navigability · High interface indirection · ×1

High interface indirection — 43 % of calls go through an interface — tracing a call means resolving the implementation each hop. Prefer concrete types where there's a single implementation.

D27 · Navigability · Scattered collaborators · ×1

Scattered collaborators — 63 % of calls cross a namespace and only 53 % of collaborators are co-located — group each feature's code into a vertical slice so a call's collaborators sit together.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No architecture diagram/doc · ×1

No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1

No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

Minor — 11 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×11

Outdated: github.com/8treenet/iris/v12 — `github.com/8treenet/iris/v12` is required at v12.1.9 in REDACTED, but v12.1.10 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/8treenet/iris/v12@v12.1.10 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/BurntSushi/toml — `github.com/BurntSushi/toml` is required at v1.2.0 in REDACTED, but v1.6.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/BurntSushi/toml@v1.6.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/IBM/sarama — `github.com/IBM/sarama` is required at v1.46.3 in REDACTED, but v1.60.2 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/IBM/sarama@v1.60.2 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/go-sql-driver/mysql — `github.com/go-sql-driver/mysql` is required at v1.9.3 in REDACTED, but v1.10.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/go-sql-driver/mysql@v1.10.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/kataras/golog — `github.com/kataras/golog` is required at v0.1.7 in REDACTED, but v0.2.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/kataras/golog@v0.2.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/prometheus/client_golang — `github.com/prometheus/client_golang` is required at v1.23.2 in REDACTED, but v1.24.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/prometheus/client_golang@v1.24.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/redis/go-redis/v9 — `github.com/redis/go-redis/v9` is required at v9.17.2 in REDACTED, but v9.22.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/redis/go-redis/v9@v9.22.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/net — `golang.org/x/net` is required at v0.55.0 in REDACTED, but v0.59.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/net@v0.59.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/sync — `golang.org/x/sync` is required at v0.20.0 in REDACTED, but v0.23.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/sync@v0.23.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: gorm.io/driver/postgres — `gorm.io/driver/postgres` is required at v1.6.0 in REDACTED, but v1.6.3 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get gorm.io/driver/postgres@v1.6.3 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: gorm.io/gorm — `gorm.io/gorm` is required at v1.31.1 in REDACTED, but v1.31.2 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get gorm.io/gorm@v1.31.2 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.

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.

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-1c2d60c69ab74259b78966a181c2598f/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-1c2d60c69ab74259b78966a181c2598f/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	16	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	5	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: 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	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-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 Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-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 Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-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	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a0c1c3-706e-7cbc-ad1f-0f54d1047b11 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

8Treenet/freedom

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 90% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 80% · Strong ·

At a glance — Maturity · 57% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 35% · Weak · gated by P1, P3 ·

At a glance — Security · 88% · Strong ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 70% · Adequate ·

At a glance — Event-Driven · 91% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts