Public report — Warteschlangensimulator, published 4 Aug 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdog 04-08-2026 @ 21:51 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

A-Herzog/Warteschlangensimulator

35% Weak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
middle

Very large · 520,408 LoC · rebuild ~3.1 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (17%)

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

28/30dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 2 LLM-assisted, advisory
31findings with an exact file:lineof 38 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
30/105dimensions across the health lenses520408 LoC — wide & deep

Executive summary

Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.

A-Herzog/Warteschlangensimulator carries serious gaps (35%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.

It is strongest in Architecture (99%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Security (75%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (17%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Accessibility (34%) is the next concern — it raises ongoing delivery and operational cost.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); Run what this repository's stack ships (Security & performance tooling); tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through… (Test Coverage).

For scale: Very large (~520,408 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~3.1 person-years (~1–6 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (99%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 17% · 46% weightAccessibility 34% · 25% weightCode Health 53% · 14% weightMaturity 73% · 8% weightSecurity 75% · 4% weightArchitecture 99% · 2% weight

Raise Readiness 17 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 35 → ~50.

Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (88+)

88 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-14) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/tools/Drand48.java
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Simulator/src/main/java/ui/modeleditor/elements/AxisDrawerEdit.java
  • D32 · High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log SimTools/src/main/java/systemtools/statistics/StatisticViewerReport.java
  • D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: CalcSymbolList.java ↔ ExpressionBuilderDistributions.java SimSystem/src/main/java/parser/CalcSymbolList.java
  • D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: CalcSymbolList.java ↔ ExpressionBuilderBasics.java SimSystem/src/main/java/parser/CalcSymbolList.java
  • D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: DistributionTools.java ↔ ExpressionBuilderDistributions.java SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/tools/DistributionTools.java
  • D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: SimToolsImages.java ↔ LanguageStaticLoader.java SimTools/src/main/java/systemtools/images/SimToolsImages.java
  • D35 · Change coupling: SystemInterface.java ↔ ScriptPopup.java Simulator/src/main/java/scripting/java/SystemInterface.java
  • D35 · Change coupling: SystemInterface.java ↔ ScriptEditorAreaBuilder.java Simulator/src/main/java/scripting/java/SystemInterface.java
  • D35 · Change coupling: SystemInterface.java ↔ JSCommandSystem.java Simulator/src/main/java/scripting/java/SystemInterface.java
  • D35 · Change coupling: JDistributionEditorPanelRecord.java ↔ CalcSymbolList.java SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/swing/JDistributionEditorPanelRecord.java
  • D35 · Change coupling: DistributionTools.java ↔ CalcSymbolList.java SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/tools/DistributionTools.java
  • D35 · Change coupling: ExpressionCalc.java ↔ ExpressionBuilderSimulationData.java Simulator/src/main/java/simulator/simparser/ExpressionCalc.java
  • R10 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_de.js
  • R10 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/qs3d_viewer.js
  • R10 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/js_de.js
  • R10 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/js_de.js
  • R10 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 4 locations) Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/js_de.js
  • R10 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/js_de.js
  • R3 · Large Files
  • R4 · Test Coverage
  • AC1 · <canvas> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_de.html
  • AC1 · <canvas> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_en.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/EditorModelDialog.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/EditorModelDialog.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/EditorModelDialog.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/EditorModelDialog.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/EditorModelDialog.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/EditorModelDialog.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/EditorModelDialog.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/EditorModelDialog.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/EditorModelDialog.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/EditorModelDialog.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/EditorModelDialog.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/EditorModelDialog.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/EditorModelDialog.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/MainEditor.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/MainEditor.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/Setup.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/Setup.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/Setup.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/Setup.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/Setup.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/Setup.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/Setup.html
  • AC1 · <img> without a text alternative Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/welcome.html
  • AC3 · <html> without a lang Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_de.html
  • AC3 · Page without a main landmark Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_de.html
  • AC3 · Viewport restricts zoom Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_de.html
  • AC3 · <html> without a lang Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_en.html
  • AC3 · Page without a main landmark Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_en.html
  • AC3 · Viewport restricts zoom Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_en.html
  • AC3 · <html> without a lang Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/help_de.html
  • AC3 · Page without a main landmark Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/help_de.html
  • AC3 · Viewport restricts zoom Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/help_de.html
  • AC3 · <html> without a lang Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/help_en.html
  • AC3 · Page without a main landmark Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/help_en.html
  • AC3 · Viewport restricts zoom Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/help_en.html
  • AC3 · <html> without a lang Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/index_de.html
  • AC3 · Page without a main landmark Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/index_de.html
  • AC3 · Viewport restricts zoom Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/index_de.html
  • AC3 · <html> without a lang Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/index_en.html
  • AC3 · Page without a main landmark Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/index_en.html
  • AC3 · Viewport restricts zoom Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/index_en.html
  • AC3 · Page without a main landmark Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/qs3d_de.html
  • AC3 · Page without a main landmark Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/qs3d_en.html
  • AC3 · <html> without a lang Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/index_data_de.html
  • AC3 · Page without a main landmark Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/index_data_de.html
  • AC3 · Viewport restricts zoom Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/index_data_de.html
  • AC3 · <html> without a lang Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/index_data_en.html
  • AC3 · Page without a main landmark Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/index_data_en.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_de.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_de.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_de.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_de.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_de.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_en.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_en.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_en.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_en.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_en.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/qs3d_de.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/qs3d_de.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/qs3d_en.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/qs3d_en.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/ModelElementDisposeWithTable.html
  • AC4 · Anchor without href Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_en/ModelElementDisposeWithTable.html
  • AC7 · Accessibility enforcement below the top rung

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €150,000–€760,000
Cost to rebuild€150,000–€760,000 (1.5–4.8 person-years (2,534–8,039 h), ~1–6 engineers)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 35% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeVery large · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~3.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€460,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 17% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × 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.

1
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
+16.6 pts · Medium effort · CI/CD gates
2
Run what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — 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.
+16.6 pts · Medium effort · Security & performance tooling
3
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
+16.6 pts · Medium effort · Test Coverage

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Very large asset (~3.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 17%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Very large, ~3.1 person-years rebuild (520,408 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 17%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a 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

53 modules, 1 dependency — every dependency points down the layering, so there are no cycles. 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.)

(global)gitconnectlanguageloganalyzermathtoolsmathtools.distribution…ls.distribution.swing…ls.distribution.toolsnet.ddenet.mqttnet.webnet.webcalcparserparser.coresymbolsscripting.javasimcore.eventcachesimcore.eventmanagersimcore.loggingsimulatorsimulator.coreelementssimulator.editmodelsimulator.elementssimulator.examplessimulator.runmodelsimulator.simparsersimulator.statisticsstatisticssystemtools…stemtools.commandlinesystemtools.helpsystemtools.statisticstoolsuiui.calculatorui.commandlineui.dialogsui.expressionbuilderui.help…eleditor.coreelements….modeleditor.elements(global)1gitconnect2language3loganalyzer4mathtools5mathtools.distribution6…ls.distribution.swing7…ls.distribution.tools8net.dde9net.mqtt10net.web11net.webcalc12parser13parser.coresymbols14scripting.java15simcore.eventcache16simcore.eventmanager17simcore.logging18simulator19simulator.coreelements20simulator.editmodel21simulator.elements22simulator.examples23simulator.runmodel24simulator.simparser25simulator.statistics26statistics27systemtools28…stemtools.commandline29systemtools.help30systemtools.statistics31tools32ui33ui.calculator34ui.commandline35ui.dialogs36ui.expressionbuilder37ui.help38…eleditor.coreelements39….modeleditor.elements401+13 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 53% · Adequate · gated by R1

At a glance — Architecture · 99% · Exemplary

At a glance — Maturity · 73% · Strong

At a glance — Readiness · 17% · Critical · gated by R4, P1, P3

At a glance — Security · 75% · Adequate · gated by D29

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

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A03:2021 — Injection17High / Critical
A04:2021 — Insecure Design1High / Critical

Roadmap

First, establish a continuous integration pipeline to automatically build the code and run the test suite on every change. Integrate static security scanning into this workflow to ensure security regressions fail the build immediately. Next, expand the test suite to cover all production modules, ensuring comprehensive test coverage. Finally, implement versioning in the build manifest to make releases traceable, and add text alternatives for all media elements to improve accessibility.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.+16.6 ptsMediumCI/CD gates
Run what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — 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.+16.6 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).+16.6 ptsMediumTest Coverage
Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.+14.6 ptsMediumRelease Hygiene
Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.+8.7 ptsMediumText alternatives
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.+8.7 ptsMediumKeyboard semantics
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain your project already uses: assert accessibility in your UI test suite with your toolkit's own matcher (Flutter `meetsGuideline`, Espresso `AccessibilityChecks`, XCTest `performAccessibilityAudit`), then gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.+8.5 ptsMediumA11y enforcement
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.+8.4 ptsMediumPage structure

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 21 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 52% mixed · 48% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
SimSystem/src/main/java/xml/XMLTools.java4.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: documentbuilderfactory-disallow-doctype-decl-missing
SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/tools/DistributionTools.java6.5MixedChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: DistributionTools.java ↔ ExpressionBuilderDistributions.java
SimSystem/src/main/java/parser/CalcSymbolList.java7.0MixedChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: CalcSymbolList.java ↔ ExpressionBuilderDistributions.java
Simulator/src/main/java/ui/parameterseries/ParameterCompareSetupModel.java7.2MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: documentbuilderfactory-disallow-doctype-decl-missing
SimTools/src/main/java/systemtools/statistics/StatisticViewerReport.java7.2MixedData Compliance (PII/GDPR): High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log
Simulator/src/main/java/scripting/java/SystemInterface.java7.4MixedChange Coupling: Change coupling: SystemInterface.java ↔ ScriptPopup.java
SimSystem/src/main/java/xml/ChiperTools.java7.9MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: use-of-default-aes
Simulator/src/main/java/net/calc/NetClient.java7.9MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: unencrypted-socket
Simulator/src/main/java/net/calc/NetServer.java7.9MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: unencrypted-socket
Simulator/src/main/java/net/socket/SocketServerBase.java7.9MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: unencrypted-socket
Simulator/src/main/java/tools/SystemID.java7.9MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: use-of-blowfish
SimTools/src/main/java/systemtools/images/SimToolsImages.java8.0Near-cleanChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: SimToolsImages.java ↔ LanguageStaticLoader.java
SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/tools/Drand48.java8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (7 lines × 2)
Simulator/src/main/java/ui/modeleditor/elements/AxisDrawerEdit.java8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (7 lines × 2)
SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/swing/JDistributionEditorPanelRecord.java8.5Near-cleanChange Coupling: Change coupling: JDistributionEditorPanelRecord.java ↔ CalcSymbolList.java
Simulator/src/main/java/simulator/simparser/ExpressionCalc.java8.5Near-cleanChange Coupling: Change coupling: ExpressionCalc.java ↔ ExpressionBuilderSimulationData.java
Simulator/src/main/java/net/mqtt/MQTTSimClientBase.java9.0Near-cleanStatic Analysis (SAST): Low: insecure-trust-manager
Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/QueueingCalculator.html9.0Near-cleanStatic Analysis (SAST): Low: plaintext-http-link
Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_en/QueueingCalculator.html9.0Near-cleanStatic Analysis (SAST): Low: plaintext-http-link
Simulator/src/main/java/scripting/js/JSEngineScriptEngine.java9.3Near-cleanStatic Analysis (SAST): Low: script-engine-injection

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. 28 of 30 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.4 — 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 — 30 dimensions across the health lenses
D4D13D16D19D21D28D29D32D34D35D37AC1AC2AC3AC4AC6AC7M1M2M3M4P1P3P6R1R10R2R3R4R9

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 31 of 38 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.

Tools & methods

The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019fcec2-b148-7d3d-ace0-b2565e60f599.

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.

  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.

Per-dimension blind spots

For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • 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").
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • 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").
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR): PII/GDPR signals are heuristic pattern matches in code — they flag likely handling concerns, not legal compliance, and cannot trace where data actually flows at runtime.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
  • AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A clean result is "no unlabelled native control found", not a labelling proof.
  • AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
  • 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.
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

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

Dimensions

D4 · Code Duplication10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.

Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.

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

2 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/tools/Drand48.java:107

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D13 · Secret Scanning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.

Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").

Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

95 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is Simulator/src/main/java/ui/statistics/StatisticViewerOverviewText.java.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

Warteschlangensimulator is a well-structured open-source event-driven stochastic simulation with strong download and release metadata, an extensive README that covers features, download options, benchmarking (SNE models), and a detailed architecture document. The documentation is rich in content but appears to be clipped mid-sentence during the model description, so any unshown sections listed in the outline are not flagged as missing; this is consistent with how clip markers behave. There is no dedicated architecture or design doc for the core simulation engine (e.g., queueing network models, event loop), which would make a new document path ideal.

The German README begins and ends in a clipped void ('Warteschlangensimulator: Schnelle und einfach zu bedienende ereignisorientierte Simulation'), with no visible content after the clip marker, so any outline section listed there cannot be confirmed missing.docs/index_de.html

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 The German README begins and ends in a clipped void… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with index_de.html. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.

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

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

gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)2.9 / 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 2.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

High: documentbuilderfactory-disallow-doctype-decl-missing · ×5SimSystem/src/main/java/xml/XMLTools.java:415detected by semgrep finding
Medium: use-of-default-aes · ×5SimSystem/src/main/java/xml/ChiperTools.java:55detected by semgrep finding
Low: insecure-trust-manager · ×7Simulator/src/main/java/net/mqtt/MQTTSimClientBase.java:68detected by semgrep finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 7 Low finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with QueueingCalculator.html (4), MQTTSimClientBase.java (2), JSEngineScriptEngine.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 5 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with XMLTools.java (4), ParameterCompareSetupModel.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 5 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with ChiperTools.java, NetClient.java, NetServer.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).

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

D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Likely personal-data (PII / GDPR) handling concerns — logging or storing data without safeguards.

Method: Heuristic PII/GDPR pattern scan via semgrep across the repo, using Watchdog's own ruleset (personal data reaching log/console sinks, URLs and query strings, or unprotected browser storage); matches map to severity and a 0-10 wide normalizer. NotApplicable when the scan runs and detects no PII/GDPR surface (no unearned 10); reported LOUDLY as a measurement gap, never as not-applicable, if the ruleset is missing from the analyzer image. Exhaustive, advisory-leaning; degrades on parse failure.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 7.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-logSimTools/src/main/java/systemtools/statistics/StatisticViewerReport.java:635detected by semgrep finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 High finding(s) in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — start with StatisticViewerReport.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d32_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

D35 · Change Coupling9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.

Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: CalcSymbolList.java↔ExpressionBuilderDistributions.java 82%; SystemInterface.java↔ScriptPopup.java 80%; CalcSymbolList.java↔ExpressionBuilderBasics.java 75%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: CalcSymbolList.java ↔ ExpressionBuilderDistributions.java · ×4SimSystem/src/main/java/parser/CalcSymbolList.java
Change coupling: SystemInterface.java ↔ ScriptPopup.java · ×6Simulator/src/main/java/scripting/java/SystemInterface.java

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.

Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.

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

A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC1 · Text alternatives1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • A <canvas> with no aria-label/title and no inner fallback content can't be described by assistive tech. Add a name or fallback content. (×2) — animation_de.html:30, animation_en.html:30
  • An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative. (×23) — EditorModelDialog.html:28, EditorModelDialog.html:56, EditorModelDialog.html:149, …

What to do

  • Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.
AC2 · Forms & labels10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

AC3 · Page structure4.2 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en"). (×8) — animation_de.html:2, animation_en.html:2, help_de.html:2, …
  • No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×10) — animation_de.html:2, animation_en.html:2, help_de.html:2, …
  • user-scalable=no/0 or a maximum-scale below 2 stops low-vision users zooming to 200%. Remove the zoom restriction from the viewport meta. (×7) — animation_de.html:10, animation_en.html:10, help_de.html:10, …

What to do

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

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

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

  • An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action. (×16) — animation_de.html:22, animation_de.html:23, animation_de.html:25, …

What to do

  • Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
AC6 · Visual & motion safety10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No accessibility enforcement found — no accessibility linting at author time and no automated accessibility check in tests or CI. Add your UI toolkit's own accessibility assertion to the test suite (Flutter `meetsGuideline`, Espresso `AccessibilityChecks`, XCTest `performAccessibilityAudit`), then gate that test in the pipeline.

What to do

  • Enforce accessibility in the toolchain your project already uses: assert accessibility in your UI test suite with your toolkit's own matcher (Flutter `meetsGuideline`, Espresso `AccessibilityChecks`, XCTest `performAccessibilityAudit`), then gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.
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.
  • Add a README to the 4 of 4 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 `NNNN-title.md` documents 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.

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 `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.

Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.

M4 · Documentation 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.

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.
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 spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (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 to do

  • Run what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — 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.
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.

What to do

  • Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.
R1 · Type Safety0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 0 typed · 13 plain JS — the untyped files are Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_de.js, Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_en.js, Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/js_de.js, Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/js_en.js, Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/qs3d_language_de.js, Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/qs3d_language_en.js (+7 more).

What to do

  • Adopt TypeScript for the frontend: add a typecheck step to the build, then either type-check the existing JavaScript in place (`checkJs`/JSDoc types) or convert the highest-traffic modules first — no file is typed today, so this is an adoption, not a clean-up.
R10 · Code Duplication7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/qs3d_viewer.js:137 · Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/qs3d_viewer.js:205 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — qs3d_viewer.js:137
  • Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/qs3d_viewer.js:202 · Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/qs3d_viewer.js:216 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — qs3d_viewer.js:202
  • Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_de.js:174 · Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/animation_en.js:174 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — animation_de.js:174
  • Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/qs3d_viewer.js:160 · Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/qs3d_viewer.js:178 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — qs3d_viewer.js:160
  • Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/js_de.js:33 · Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/js_en.js:33 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — js_de.js:33
  • Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/js_de.js:79 · Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/js_en.js:79 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — js_de.js:79
  • Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/js_de.js:4 · Simulator/src/main/java/net/web/res/js_en.js:4 · Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/js_de.js:4 · Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/js_en.js:4 — the 4 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — js_de.js:4
  • Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/js_de.js:171 · Simulator/src/main/java/net/webcalc/res/js_en.js:171 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — js_de.js:171

What to do

  • Extract the duplicated blocks into shared functions/components.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Branch-heavy code is where defects cluster — extract decisions into smaller functions. (×2) — qs3d_viewer.js:123, qs3d_scene.js:68

What to do

  • Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
R3 · Large Files6.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 1 file(s) over 400 lines (counted as significant lines — blank lines excluded — over production source only, tests excluded), largest first: Simulator/src/main/java/ui/statistics/sankey/sankey.js (501).

What to do

  • Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
R4 · Test Coverage0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 0% of 13 production file(s) reachable from 0 test file(s) via the import graph

What to do

  • Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
R9 · Circular Imports10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

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

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

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

Reference — by lens

The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health53%Adequate — gated by R1Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture99%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity73%StrongSolid.
Readiness17%Critical — gated by R4, P1, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security75%Adequate — gated by D29Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Accessibility34%Weak — gated by AC1, AC4Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 75 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.

  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No ARIA usage found in the parsed markup — AC5 not applicable here.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
  • AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over a document set 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
  • 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 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
  • AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) 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
  • 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
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.java, .py) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it, so cyclomatic complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
  • D10 Test Quality — ~17317 lines of test source are present (.java) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
  • D14 License Compliance — 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 Maven POM), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — complexity unreadable for .java, .py — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
  • D17 Explicit Debt — explicit-debt markers are read through a C# workspace today, so they were not read for this repository's language — this asserts nothing about how many markers the code carries. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • 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.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.java, .py) had no cognitive complexity computed for it, so cognitive complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
  • D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.java, .py) 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.
  • D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D3 God Classes — Most of this repository's production source (.java, .py) was not read by god-class detection, so class size was not assessed for the languages that are the product — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's class size. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Maven POM — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
  • 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.
  • 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.)
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is .java, .py, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • 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
  • D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.java) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (13 value object(s))
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
  • 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.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — 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 (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report` or the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • 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.
  • R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
  • R5 Dependency Freshness — no package-lock.json — dependency freshness not measured (would require an npm lockfile); JS/npm CVEs are scored in D33 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities)
  • R6 Tooling — no package.json in the repository — test/lint/typecheck wiring is read from package.json scripts (corroborated against CI), so this project's own toolchain isn't measured here
  • R7 Dead Code — Not measured — no application, tooling or test entry point was detected, so no file can be shown to be reachable or unreachable. Declare an entry (package.json main/module/exports, src/index.*, or an index.html script) to enable reachability.
  • R8 Dependency Hygiene — Not measured — no package.json declares any dependency, so there is nothing to check imports against (imports may resolve through a host runtime rather than node).
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.

Issue — 10 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · High · ×5
  • High: documentbuilderfactory-disallow-doctype-decl-missing SimSystem/src/main/java/xml/XMLTools.java:415 — DOCTYPE declarations are enabled for this DocumentBuilderFactory. This is vulnerable to XML external entity attacks. Disable this by setting the feature "http://apache.org/xml/features/disallow-doctype-decl" to true. Alternatively, allow DOCTYPE declarations and only prohibit external entities declarations. This can be done by setting the features "http://xml.org/sax/features/external-general-entities" and "http://xml.org/sax/features/external-parameter-entities" to false. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
  • High: documentbuilderfactory-disallow-doctype-decl-missing SimSystem/src/main/java/xml/XMLTools.java:445 — DOCTYPE declarations are enabled for this DocumentBuilderFactory. This is vulnerable to XML external entity attacks. Disable this by setting the feature "http://apache.org/xml/features/disallow-doctype-decl" to true. Alternatively, allow DOCTYPE declarations and only prohibit external entities declarations. This can be done by setting the features "http://xml.org/sax/features/external-general-entities" and "http://xml.org/sax/features/external-parameter-entities" to false. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
  • High: documentbuilderfactory-disallow-doctype-decl-missing SimSystem/src/main/java/xml/XMLTools.java:688 — DOCTYPE declarations are enabled for this DocumentBuilderFactory. This is vulnerable to XML external entity attacks. Disable this by setting the feature "http://apache.org/xml/features/disallow-doctype-decl" to true. Alternatively, allow DOCTYPE declarations and only prohibit external entities declarations. This can be done by setting the features "http://xml.org/sax/features/external-general-entities" and "http://xml.org/sax/features/external-parameter-entities" to false. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
  • High: documentbuilderfactory-disallow-doctype-decl-missing SimSystem/src/main/java/xml/XMLTools.java:861 — DOCTYPE declarations are enabled for this DocumentBuilderFactory. This is vulnerable to XML external entity attacks. Disable this by setting the feature "http://apache.org/xml/features/disallow-doctype-decl" to true. Alternatively, allow DOCTYPE declarations and only prohibit external entities declarations. This can be done by setting the features "http://xml.org/sax/features/external-general-entities" and "http://xml.org/sax/features/external-parameter-entities" to false. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
  • High: documentbuilderfactory-disallow-doctype-decl-missing Simulator/src/main/java/ui/parameterseries/ParameterCompareSetupModel.java:220 — DOCTYPE declarations are enabled for this DocumentBuilderFactory. This is vulnerable to XML external entity attacks. Disable this by setting the feature "http://apache.org/xml/features/disallow-doctype-decl" to true. Alternatively, allow DOCTYPE declarations and only prohibit external entities declarations. This can be done by setting the features "http://xml.org/sax/features/external-general-entities" and "http://xml.org/sax/features/external-parameter-entities" to false. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×4
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: CalcSymbolList.java ↔ ExpressionBuilderDistributions.java SimSystem/src/main/java/parser/CalcSymbolList.java — `SimSystem/src/main/java/parser/CalcSymbolList.java` (context SimSystem) and `Simulator/src/main/java/ui/expressionbuilder/ExpressionBuilderDistributions.java` (context Simulator) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 82% of the time (37 of the 45 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: CalcSymbolList.java ↔ ExpressionBuilderBasics.java SimSystem/src/main/java/parser/CalcSymbolList.java — `SimSystem/src/main/java/parser/CalcSymbolList.java` (context SimSystem) and `Simulator/src/main/java/ui/expressionbuilder/ExpressionBuilderBasics.java` (context Simulator) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 75% of the time (12 of the 16 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: DistributionTools.java ↔ ExpressionBuilderDistributions.java SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/tools/DistributionTools.java — `SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/tools/DistributionTools.java` (context SimSystem) and `Simulator/src/main/java/ui/expressionbuilder/ExpressionBuilderDistributions.java` (context Simulator) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 58% of the time (26 of the 45 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: SimToolsImages.java ↔ LanguageStaticLoader.java SimTools/src/main/java/systemtools/images/SimToolsImages.java — `SimTools/src/main/java/systemtools/images/SimToolsImages.java` (context SimTools) and `Simulator/src/main/java/language/LanguageStaticLoader.java` (context Simulator) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 56% of the time (10 of the 18 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · High · ×1
  • High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log SimTools/src/main/java/systemtools/statistics/StatisticViewerReport.java:635 — Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
Warning — 13 finding(s)
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×6
  • Change coupling: SystemInterface.java ↔ ScriptPopup.java Simulator/src/main/java/scripting/java/SystemInterface.java — `Simulator/src/main/java/scripting/java/SystemInterface.java` and `Simulator/src/main/java/ui/script/ScriptPopup.java` change together 80% of the time (12 of the 15 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
  • Change coupling: SystemInterface.java ↔ ScriptEditorAreaBuilder.java Simulator/src/main/java/scripting/java/SystemInterface.java — `Simulator/src/main/java/scripting/java/SystemInterface.java` and `Simulator/src/main/java/ui/script/ScriptEditorAreaBuilder.java` change together 73% of the time (11 of the 15 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
  • Change coupling: SystemInterface.java ↔ JSCommandSystem.java Simulator/src/main/java/scripting/java/SystemInterface.java — `Simulator/src/main/java/scripting/java/SystemInterface.java` and `Simulator/src/main/java/scripting/js/JSCommandSystem.java` change together 73% of the time (11 of the 15 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
  • Change coupling: JDistributionEditorPanelRecord.java ↔ CalcSymbolList.java SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/swing/JDistributionEditorPanelRecord.java — `SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/swing/JDistributionEditorPanelRecord.java` and `SimSystem/src/main/java/parser/CalcSymbolList.java` change together 71% of the time (29 of the 41 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
  • Change coupling: DistributionTools.java ↔ CalcSymbolList.java SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/tools/DistributionTools.java — `SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/tools/DistributionTools.java` and `SimSystem/src/main/java/parser/CalcSymbolList.java` change together 67% of the time (30 of the 45 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
  • Change coupling: ExpressionCalc.java ↔ ExpressionBuilderSimulationData.java Simulator/src/main/java/simulator/simparser/ExpressionCalc.java — `Simulator/src/main/java/simulator/simparser/ExpressionCalc.java` and `Simulator/src/main/java/ui/expressionbuilder/ExpressionBuilderSimulationData.java` change together 60% of the time (12 of the 20 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · Medium · ×5
  • Medium: use-of-default-aes SimSystem/src/main/java/xml/ChiperTools.java:55 — Use of AES with no settings detected. By default, java.crypto.Cipher uses ECB mode. ECB doesn't provide message confidentiality and is not semantically secure so should not be used. Instead, use a strong, secure cipher: java.crypto.Cipher.getInstance("AES/CBC/PKCS7PADDING"). See https://owasp.org/www-community/Using_the_Java_Cryptographic_Extensions for more information. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive pattern is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether the flagged value reaches a security decision — a credential, token, nonce, key, salt or session id, or an externally reachable surface — and apply the change where it does; where it provably does not (cosmetic, simulation, or deliberately reproducible use), record the review and leave the code as it is.
  • Medium: unencrypted-socket Simulator/src/main/java/net/calc/NetClient.java:92 — Detected use of a Java socket that is not encrypted. As a result, the traffic could be read by an attacker intercepting the network traffic. Use an SSLSocket created by 'SSLSocketFactory' or 'SSLServerSocketFactory' instead. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive pattern is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether the flagged value reaches a security decision — a credential, token, nonce, key, salt or session id, or an externally reachable surface — and apply the change where it does; where it provably does not (cosmetic, simulation, or deliberately reproducible use), record the review and leave the code as it is.
  • Medium: unencrypted-socket Simulator/src/main/java/net/calc/NetServer.java:119 — Detected use of a Java socket that is not encrypted. As a result, the traffic could be read by an attacker intercepting the network traffic. Use an SSLSocket created by 'SSLSocketFactory' or 'SSLServerSocketFactory' instead. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive pattern is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether the flagged value reaches a security decision — a credential, token, nonce, key, salt or session id, or an externally reachable surface — and apply the change where it does; where it provably does not (cosmetic, simulation, or deliberately reproducible use), record the review and leave the code as it is.
  • Medium: unencrypted-socket Simulator/src/main/java/net/socket/SocketServerBase.java:87 — Detected use of a Java socket that is not encrypted. As a result, the traffic could be read by an attacker intercepting the network traffic. Use an SSLSocket created by 'SSLSocketFactory' or 'SSLServerSocketFactory' instead. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive pattern is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether the flagged value reaches a security decision — a credential, token, nonce, key, salt or session id, or an externally reachable surface — and apply the change where it does; where it provably does not (cosmetic, simulation, or deliberately reproducible use), record the review and leave the code as it is.
  • Medium: use-of-blowfish Simulator/src/main/java/tools/SystemID.java:210 — Use of Blowfish was detected. Blowfish uses a 64-bit block size that makes it vulnerable to birthday attacks, and is therefore considered non-compliant. Instead, use a strong, secure cipher: Cipher.getInstance("AES/CBC/PKCS7PADDING"). See https://owasp.org/www-community/Using_the_Java_Cryptographic_Extensions for more information. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive pattern is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether the flagged value reaches a security decision — a credential, token, nonce, key, salt or session id, or an externally reachable surface — and apply the change where it does; where it provably does not (cosmetic, simulation, or deliberately reproducible use), record the review and leave the code as it is.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/tools/Drand48.java:107 — SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/tools/Drand48.java:107-114 | SimSystem/src/main/java/mathtools/distribution/tools/Drand48.java:132-138 — 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.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Simulator/src/main/java/ui/modeleditor/elements/AxisDrawerEdit.java:120 — Simulator/src/main/java/ui/modeleditor/elements/AxisDrawerEdit.java:120-126 | Simulator/src/main/java/ui/modeleditor/elements/AxisDrawerEdit.java:130-136 — 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 `Simulator/src/main/java/ui/modeleditor/elements/AxisDrawerEdit.java:120` 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.
Recommendation — 13 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · Low · ×7
  • Low: insecure-trust-manager Simulator/src/main/java/net/mqtt/MQTTSimClientBase.java:68 — Detected empty trust manager implementations. This is dangerous because it accepts any certificate, enabling man-in-the-middle attacks. Consider using a KeyStore and TrustManagerFactory instead. See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2642777/trusting-all-certificates-using-httpclient-over-https for more information. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive pattern is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether the flagged value reaches a security decision — a credential, token, nonce, key, salt or session id, or an externally reachable surface — and apply the change where it does; where it provably does not (cosmetic, simulation, or deliberately reproducible use), record the review and leave the code as it is.
  • Low: insecure-trust-manager Simulator/src/main/java/net/mqtt/MQTTSimClientBase.java:69 — Detected empty trust manager implementations. This is dangerous because it accepts any certificate, enabling man-in-the-middle attacks. Consider using a KeyStore and TrustManagerFactory instead. See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2642777/trusting-all-certificates-using-httpclient-over-https for more information. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive pattern is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether the flagged value reaches a security decision — a credential, token, nonce, key, salt or session id, or an externally reachable surface — and apply the change where it does; where it provably does not (cosmetic, simulation, or deliberately reproducible use), record the review and leave the code as it is.
  • Low: script-engine-injection Simulator/src/main/java/scripting/js/JSEngineScriptEngine.java:125 — Detected potential code injection using ScriptEngine. Ensure user-controlled data cannot enter '.eval()', otherwise, this is a code injection vulnerability. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
  • Low: plaintext-http-link Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/QueueingCalculator.html:76 — This link points to a plaintext HTTP URL. Prefer an encrypted HTTPS URL if possible.
  • Low: plaintext-http-link Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_de/QueueingCalculator.html:77 — This link points to a plaintext HTTP URL. Prefer an encrypted HTTPS URL if possible.
  • Low: plaintext-http-link Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_en/QueueingCalculator.html:82 — This link points to a plaintext HTTP URL. Prefer an encrypted HTTPS URL if possible.
  • Low: plaintext-http-link Simulator/src/main/java/ui/help/pages_en/QueueingCalculator.html:83 — This link points to a plaintext HTTP URL. Prefer an encrypted HTTPS URL if possible.
D11 · Test Reliability · Test reliability not included · ×1
  • Test reliability not included — Test source is present (.java) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · complexity unreadable for .java, .py · ×1
  • complexity unreadable for .java, .py — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured — A hotspot is churn × complexity. Churn was measured (3689 line(s) across the 90-day window), but no complexity could be computed for .java, .py, which is most of this repository's production code — so every churned file would score as complexity 0 and the hotspot list would be empty no matter how tangled the code is. Not scored — this is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 95 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: Simulator/src/main/java/ui/statistics/StatisticViewerOverviewText.java, Simulator/src/main/java/ui/MainPanel.java, Simulator/src/main/java/ui/modeleditor/ModelSurfacePanel.java, Simulator/src/main/java/ui/EditorPanel.java, Simulator/src/main/java/simulator/runmodel/RunData.java, Simulator/src/main/java/tools/SetupData.java, Simulator/src/main/java/language/LanguageStaticLoader.java, Simulator/src/main/java/ui/AnimationPanel.java (+87 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D19 · Documentation Quality · The German README begins and ends in a clipped void ('Warteschlangensimulator · ×1
  • The German README begins and ends in a clipped void ('Warteschlangensimulator: Schnelle und einfach zu bedienende ereignisorientierte Simulation'), with no visible content after the clip marker, so any outline section listed there cannot be confirmed missing. docs/index_de.html
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Scanner failed to run · ×1
  • Scanner failed to run — not a clean result — osv-scanner exited 128 with no findings — the advisory database was likely unreachable. The scanner exited non-zero and produced no findings (typically the advisory DB was unreachable), so this is reported as a measurement gap rather than a clean pass.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not included · ×1
  • Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector — Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.java) 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 (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report` or the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored.
Info — 2 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Dependency hygiene not measured · ×1
  • Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene — This repository's dependency manifest (a Maven POM) was found, but this pass cannot parse it for hygiene, so no package was assessed. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED — a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. This row is about dependency HYGIENE — outdated, deprecated or unmaintained direct dependencies; known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D38 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaksgitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrepsemgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .17artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesnone (no readable dependency manifest)none (no readable dependency manifest): not present in this environment0
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivytrivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrepsemgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/gdpr.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .1artifacts/raw/semgrep-gdpr.json
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivytrivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenanceprovenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.0
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scannerosv-scanner --format json --recursive .0
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardeningruntime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardeningruntime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardeningruntime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0

Run 019fcec2-b148-7d3d-ace0-b2565e60f599 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Downloadable artifacts

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

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