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.
ActuarialIntelligence/Base carries serious risk (46%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (37%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Maturity (47%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your… (Outbound HTTP resilience); approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection… (Deployment & Rollback).
For scale: Small (~7,109 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
Code Health
56%
Adequate
Architecture
84%
Strong
Maturity
47%
Weak · gated by D34, M2
Readiness
37%
Weak · gated by P2, P3, P7
Security
63%
Adequate · gated by D36
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 37% · 47% weightMaturity 47% · 26% weightCode Health 56% · 14% weightSecurity 63% · 8% weightArchitecture 84% · 4% weight
Raise Readiness 37 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 46 → ~55.
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 21%Plumbing 62%Tests 7%Generated 9%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €4,000–€20,000
| Cost to rebuild | €4,000–€20,000 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 46% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 44% boilerplate · 31% straight-line · 26% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€12,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 37% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
2
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.
3
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 37%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. The rest can wait behind it.
Improving trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+1.8 pts/run over 13 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Trajectory
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurity
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
9.3
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
9.5
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
7.7
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
8.4
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
9.8
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Ugly
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 47 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, implement comprehensive logging using ILogger or Serilog across all projects to establish baseline observability. Next, enhance outbound HTTP resilience by adding standard resilience handlers to HttpClient registrations to prevent cascading failures. Then, introduce an approval gate for production deployments to ensure proper review before release. Additionally, enforce test suite execution in CI to block merges that break the build. Finally, begin documenting significant architectural decisions to improve long-term maintainability.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. | +10.6 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down. | +10.6 pts | Medium | Outbound HTTP resilience |
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +4.7 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. | +4.7 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion. | +7.4 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (e.g. `dotnet test`) and gate merges on it. | +6.1 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. | +5.6 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it. | +5.1 pts | Medium | Folder & project structure |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| manifests/deployment.yml | 0.0 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: KSV-0014 |
| src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml | 0.0 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: KSV-0014 |
| src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/ConnectedInstruction/ConnectedInstruction.cs | 6.4 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/ConnectedInstruction/KXQueryConnection.cs | 6.4 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/Dockerfile.develop | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/KubernetesService/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/KubernetesService/Dockerfile.develop | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/KubernetesService/Dockerfile.original | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/ActuarialIntelligence.Tests/Matrix/_nMatrixTests.cs | 6.5 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| src/AI.TensorFlow/Program.cs | 6.6 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| src/KubernetesService/Controllers/ValuesController.cs | 6.6 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| src/ActuarialIntelligence.Calculators/ImageToModelCalculator.cs | 6.7 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| src/TestApplication/Main.cs | 7.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| src/BasicTTS/FormMainHelpers.cs | 7.8 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) |
| src/AI.TTS.EXE/Program.cs | 7.8 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) |
| src/Test/Program.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| src/KubernetesService/Controllers/LogAnalyticsConnectorController.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/Regression/UnivariateRegressionFitting.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/DBHazardPDF.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
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. 45 of 47 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 0.6 — 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.
What we checked — 47 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D20D21D24D26D28D29D31D34D35D36AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P7S1X1X2X3X4X5
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 101 of 125 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
- 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.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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.
- D33 JS/npm 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.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — 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.
- D38 OSV 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.
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
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- 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.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
2 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ImageToModelContainer.ConvolutionFilter at 25.
ImageToModelContainer.ConvolutionFilter (cognitive 25)src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/Model Containers/ModelInterfaces/ImageToModelContainer.cs:59
(anonymous) (cognitive 16)src/ActuarialIntelligence.Infrastructure.PythonScripts/env/Lib/site-packages/urllib3/contrib/emscripten/emscripten_fetch_worker.js:12
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
9 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/Mathematical Technique Objects/HouseholderQR.cs:97
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/Matrix/_mnMatrix.cs:35
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2)src/BasicTTS/FormMainHelpers.cs:170
Duplicated block (16 lines × 3)src/AI.TTS.EXE/Program.cs:95
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2)src/BasicTTS/FormMainHelpers.cs:69
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
26 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Layer violation: Domain → Infrastructure
Off the main sequence: ActuarialIntelligence.Infrastructure.Data
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 27 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
7 test methods: 7 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 8 tests.
Mock framework: Moq
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 26 packages use a banned license.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
7 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/BasicTTS/FormMainHelpers.cs.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
42 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 7109 LoC (1.2/KLoC) → score 7.7.
CommentedOutCode src/AI.TensorFlow/Program.cs:1
What to do
- Resolve the 42 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ConnectedInstruction.cs (11), KXQueryConnection.cs (10), Program.cs (6). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (42 warning-level).
- Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
26 projects, 144 .cs files, 7700 hand-written lines of code (7109 production / 591 test), plus 767 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 36 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).
Shell project: AI.TensorFlowsrc/AI.TensorFlow/AI.TensorFlow.csproj
Thin analysable surface across projects
Build status unknown
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with AI.TensorFlow.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Thin analysable surface across projects finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
No ADRs found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
6 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Inconsistent spelling of 'Memory' as 'Memmory' in the class name 'NeuralMemmory', while other related classes like 'NeuralLearner' use correct spelling.
Inconsistent naming for properties related to object dimensions and metrics. 'Height' and 'Width' are used for 'NeuralObject', but 'MarginOfAllowledError' (misspelled) is used for 'Objective'. This suggests a lack of consistent naming for object properties across different classes.
Inconsistent naming for matrix and vector types. '_3Matrix' and '_3Vector' use a leading underscore and numeric suffix, while other matrix types like '_nMatrix' and '_mnMatrix' use different patterns. This suggests a lack of consistent naming for generic or specific dimension types.
Inconsistent naming for matrix types. '_nMatrix' and '_mnMatrix' use a leading underscore and alphanumeric suffix, but '_3Matrix' does not follow this pattern.
Inconsistent naming for properties in 'HazardPdfCdfHazardTriplet'. 'populationGroupID' uses camelCase with an ID suffix, while 'cdf' is all lowercase. This inconsistency in casing and suffix usage should be addressed.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Inconsistent spelling of 'Memory' as 'Memmory' in the class name… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for properties related to object dimensions and… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for matrix and vector types. '_3Matrix' and… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
12 valuable / 0 redundant across 200 sampled comments.
What to do
- Improve Comment Value — currently 3.0/10. — 12 valuable / 0 redundant across 200 sampled comments.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 26 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
47 finding(s): 0 critical, 11 high, 9 medium, 27 low.
High IaC: KSV-0014 manifests/deployment.yml
Medium IaC: KSV-0001 manifests/deployment.yml
Low IaC: KSV-0003 manifests/deployment.yml
What to do
- Resolve the 27 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with deployment.yaml (11), deployment.yml (11), Dockerfile (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (27 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 11 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with deployment.yaml (3), deployment.yml (3), Dockerfile (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 issue-level).
- Resolve the 9 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with deployment.yml (5), deployment.yaml (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
23 of 23 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/ConnectedInstructionEXE/Program.cs.
Dormant codebase
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
Unpinned build actions
No build provenance
No artifact signing
No SBOM
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
- `ActuarialIntelligence.Domain.Tests` is a Domain project but references `ActuarialIntelligence.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
- `ActuarialIntelligence.Domain` is a Domain project but references `ActuarialIntelligence.Infrastructure.Data`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
What to do
- Keep dependencies pointing inward: domain/application define interfaces, infrastructure/web implement them (Dependency Inversion).
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
- A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×11) — TermCashflowYieldSet.cs:25, Interpolation.cs:16, ImageToModelContainer.cs:19, …
What to do
- Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- `Equals` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — TermCashflowYieldSet.cs:23
- `Interpolate` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — Interpolation.cs:14
- `GenerateFacialExpressionsBasedOnText` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — MoveHelpers.cs:14
- `MouthMove` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — MoveHelpers.cs:51
- `EyesBlink` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — MoveHelpers.cs:62
- `RandomlyMoveAngryEyes` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — MoveHelpers.cs:74
- `MoveWorriedEyesRandomly` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — MoveHelpers.cs:121
- `btnPlay_Click` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — frmMain.cs:83
- A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×22) — FormMain.cs:30, FormMain.cs:33, FormMain.cs:34, …
What to do
- Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
- Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a README to the 26 of 26 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
- No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
What to do
- Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
- Only 12/26 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.
What to do
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
- Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
- A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (dotnet test / npm test / pytest / a test job) was matched — the gate may be running tests, or "test" may be incidental (a path, "latest", a reporter). Make the test step explicit so the gate is unambiguous.
What to do
- Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (e.g. `dotnet test`) and gate merges on it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.
What to do
- Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
What to do
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience
- The app makes outbound HTTP calls but no resilience handler was detected (Polly / AddStandardResilienceHandler / circuit-breaker). A slow or failing dependency will cascade — add timeouts, retries with back-off, and a circuit breaker.
What to do
- Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.
Do you agree with this assessment?
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
- No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)
What to do
- Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
- Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
- Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Make the caller `async` and `await` instead. (×2) — HIVEConnection.cs:18, LogAnalyticsConnectorController.cs:36
What to do
- Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
Do you agree with this assessment?
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 0/6 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
- No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×6) — frmMain.cs:83, MoveHelpers.cs:14, MoveHelpers.cs:51, …
What to do
- Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
X5 · Nullable reference types
- 2/7 projects enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable>. NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
What to do
- Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 56% | Adequate | Acceptable, with room to improve. |
| Architecture | 84% | Strong | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 47% | Weak — gated by D34, M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 37% | Weak — gated by P2, P3, P7 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 63% | Adequate — gated by D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 47 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C2 Access Controls — Partial workspace load — the web/host project 'KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector' present on disk did not load into the C# workspace (it failed to build/restore and was silently dropped), so its authorization signals were never scanned. The surviving documents carry no evidence for this control, but absence of evidence in an INCOMPLETE document set is not evidence the control is missing — the relevant middleware/attributes most plausibly live in the dropped project. This dimension is therefore Not-evidenced (excluded from the score) rather than asserting a confident negative. Restore/build that project (see diagnostics.md) so it loads and the dimension can be scored.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — test suite did not build
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — only 1/3 markers (a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer)
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 12 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- High IaC: KSV-0014 manifests/deployment.yml
- High IaC: KSV-0118 manifests/deployment.yml
- High IaC: KSV-0118 manifests/deployment.yml
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/Dockerfile.develop
- High IaC: KSV-0014 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- High IaC: KSV-0118 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- High IaC: KSV-0118 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/KubernetesService/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/KubernetesService/Dockerfile.develop
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/KubernetesService/Dockerfile.original
D5 · Coupling
- Layer violation: Domain → Infrastructure
Warning — 67 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt
- CommentedOutCode src/AI.TensorFlow/Program.cs:1
- CommentedOutCode src/AI.TensorFlow/Program.cs:56
- CommentedOutCode src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/ConnectedInstruction/ConnectedInstruction.cs:1
- CommentedOutCode src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/ConnectedInstruction/ConnectedInstruction.cs:240
- CommentedOutCode src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/ConnectedInstruction/KXQueryConnection.cs:197
- CommentedOutCode src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/ConnectedInstruction/KXQueryConnection.cs:217
- CommentedOutCode src/AI.TensorFlow/Program.cs:28
- CommentedOutCode src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/ConnectedInstruction/ConnectedInstruction.cs:135
- CommentedOutCode src/KubernetesService/Controllers/ValuesController.cs:99
- CommentedOutCode src/Test/Program.cs:139
- CommentedOutCode src/AI.TensorFlow/Program.cs:81
- CommentedOutCode src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/ConnectedInstruction/ConnectedInstruction.cs:250
- CommentedOutCode src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/ConnectedInstruction/KXQueryConnection.cs:17
- CommentedOutCode src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/ConnectedInstruction/KXQueryConnection.cs:140
- CommentedOutCode src/KubernetesService/Controllers/LogAnalyticsConnectorController.cs:17
- CommentedOutCode src/KubernetesService/Controllers/ValuesController.cs:104
- CommentedOutCode src/KubernetesService/Controllers/ValuesController.cs:110
- CommentedOutCode src/ActuarialIntelligence.Calculators/ImageToModelCalculator.cs:74
- CommentedOutCode src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/ConnectedInstruction/ConnectedInstruction.cs:30
- CommentedOutCode src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/ConnectedInstruction/KXQueryConnection.cs:1
- CommentedOutCode src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/Regression/UnivariateRegressionFitting.cs:54
- CommentedOutCode src/TestApplication/Main.cs:178
- CommentedOutCode src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/ConnectedInstruction/ConnectedInstruction.cs:41
- CommentedOutCode src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/ConnectedInstruction/KXQueryConnection.cs:73
- CommentedOutCode src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/ConnectedInstruction/KXQueryConnection.cs:102
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Medium IaC: KSV-0001 manifests/deployment.yml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0012 manifests/deployment.yml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0013 manifests/deployment.yml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0104 manifests/deployment.yml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0117 manifests/deployment.yml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0001 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0012 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0104 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0117 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/Mathematical Technique Objects/HouseholderQR.cs:97
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/ActuarialIntelligence.Calculators/ImageToModelCalculator.cs:17
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/Matrix/_mnMatrix.cs:35
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/ActuarialIntelligence.Graphics/DrawGraphics.cs:19
D5 · Coupling
- Off the main sequence: ActuarialIntelligence.Infrastructure.Data
- Off the main sequence: ActuarialIntelligence.Domain
D19 · Documentation Quality
- LLM evaluation failed
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ImageToModelContainer.ConvolutionFilter (cognitive 25) src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/Model Containers/ModelInterfaces/ImageToModelContainer.cs:59
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- (anonymous) (cognitive 16) src/ActuarialIntelligence.Infrastructure.PythonScripts/env/Lib/site-packages/urllib3/contrib/emscripten/emscripten_fetch_worker.js:12
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Unpinned build actions
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/BasicTTS/FormMainHelpers.cs:170
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) src/AI.TTS.EXE/Program.cs:95
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/BasicTTS/FormMainHelpers.cs:69
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/AI.TTS.EXE/Program.cs:54
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/ActuarialIntelligence.Domain/Date/DateIncrement.cs:45
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured — test suite did not build
Recommendation — 43 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Low IaC: KSV-0003 manifests/deployment.yml
- Low IaC: KSV-0004 manifests/deployment.yml
- Low IaC: KSV-0011 manifests/deployment.yml
- Low IaC: KSV-0015 manifests/deployment.yml
- Low IaC: KSV-0016 manifests/deployment.yml
- Low IaC: KSV-0018 manifests/deployment.yml
- Low IaC: KSV-0020 manifests/deployment.yml
- Low IaC: KSV-0021 manifests/deployment.yml
- Low IaC: KSV-0030 manifests/deployment.yml
- Low IaC: KSV-0106 manifests/deployment.yml
- Low IaC: KSV-0110 manifests/deployment.yml
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/Dockerfile.develop
- Low IaC: KSV-0003 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0004 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0011 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0015 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0016 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0018 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0020 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0021 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0030 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0106 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0110 src/KubernetesLogAnalyticsConnector/charts/kubernetesloganalyticsconnector/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/KubernetesService/Dockerfile
D11 · Test Reliability
- No tests discovered
D16 · Bus Factor
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
D18 · Solution Shape
- Shell project: AI.TensorFlow src/AI.TensorFlow/AI.TensorFlow.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Thin analysable surface across projects
D20 · ADR Quality
- No ADRs found
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Inconsistent spelling of 'Memory' as 'Memmory' in the class name 'NeuralMemmory', while other related classes like 'NeuralLearner' use correct spelling.
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Inconsistent naming for properties related to object dimensions and metrics. 'Height' and 'Width' are used for 'NeuralObject', but 'MarginOfAllowledError' (misspelled) is used for 'Objective'. This suggests a lack of consistent naming for object properties across different classes.
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Inconsistent naming for matrix and vector types. '_3Matrix' and '_3Vector' use a leading underscore and numeric suffix, while other matrix types like '_nMatrix' and '_mnMatrix' use different patterns. This suggests a lack of consistent naming for generic or specific dimension types.
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Inconsistent naming for matrix types. '_nMatrix' and '_mnMatrix' use a leading underscore and alphanumeric suffix, but '_3Matrix' does not follow this pattern.
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Inconsistent naming for properties in 'HazardPdfCdfHazardTriplet'. 'populationGroupID' uses camelCase with an ID suffix, while 'cdf' is all lowercase. This inconsistency in casing and suffix usage should be addressed.
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Inconsistent naming for properties in 'Point' class. 'Yval' and 'Xval' use camelCase with a 'val' suffix, which is inconsistent with other naming conventions in the codebase.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Bounded contexts not declared
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Dormant codebase
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No build provenance
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No artifact signing
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No SBOM
Info — 3 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality
- Mock framework: Moq
D18 · Solution Shape
- Build status unknown
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 47 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan. | 0 | — |