Executive summary
Angular2Guy/AngularAndSpringWithMaps scores 52 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while five of its six lenses score higher still: Architecture at 94, rated Exemplary, Security and Compliance at 77 and Maturity at 75, both rated Strong, and Code Health at 73 and Accessibility at 55, both rated Adequate.
The score is lower than those five because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 36 and is rated Weak. Its DR & Backup dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 4 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality and to resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 52 to about 65.
23 findings are critical: six in Static Analysis (SAST), five in Secrets (history), four in Page structure, two in Dependency Vulnerabilities, two in Forms & labels, two in IaC & Container Security, one in Secret Scanning and one in Test Quality.
Watchdog couldn't measure 12 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Test Reliability and Internal API Consistency, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 2,568 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €2,900, to rebuild.
If Production Readiness rose from 36 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 52 to about 65.
New since the last survey: 20 findings
- Secret Scanning · REDACTED
- Secrets (history) · REDACTED
- Secrets (history) · REDACTED
- Secrets (history) · REDACTED
- Secrets (history) · REDACTED
- Secrets (history) · REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
- Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
- Large Files · frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.ts: 441 lines of code frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.ts
- Test Coverage · No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.ts
- Test Coverage · No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/company-site.service.ts
- Test Coverage · No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/polygon-delete-dialog/polygon-delete-dialog.component.ts
- Test Coverage · No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/graphql.service.ts
- Test Coverage · No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/splash/splash.component.ts
- Test Coverage · No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/bing-maps.service.ts
- Test Coverage · No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/configuration.service.ts
- Test Coverage · No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/auth-guard.service.ts
- Dependency Freshness · Dependency Freshness
- Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency 'npm-run-all'
Fixed since the last survey: 48 findings
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
- Test Coverage · No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/test.ts
- Dead Code · Dead file (~17 LoC) frontend/src/angular/src/test.ts
- Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency 'istanbul-lib-instrument'
Rebuild cost: about €2,900 · Estimate
| Cost to rebuild | €960 to €4,800, for 16 to 51 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer |
|---|---|
| Difficulty of the problem | Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write. |
| Quality factor | ×0.7 at a score of 52. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it. |
| Size | Small: 2,568 lines of product code |
Top priorities
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Architecture — module dependency graph
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
| uses → | 1 ch.xxx.maps | 2 ch.xxx.maps.adapter.config | 3 ch.xxx.maps.domain.exceptions | 4 ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto | 5 ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity | 6 ch.xxx.maps.domain.utils | 7 frontend.src.angular.e2e.src.app_po | 8 frontend.src.angular.src | 9 frontend.src.angular.src.app.app_component | 10 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.company-site | 11 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.location | 12 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.main-configuration | 13 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.polygon | 14 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.ring | 15 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.polygon-delete-dialog.polygon-delete-dialog_component | 16 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.auth-guard_service | 17 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.bing-maps_service | 18 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.graphql_service | 19 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.utils | 20 frontend.src.angular.src.app.splash.splash_component | 21 ch.xxx.maps.adapter.repository | 22 ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper | 23 ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service | 24 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service | 25 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service | 26 ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller | 27 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 ch.xxx.maps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 ch.xxx.maps.adapter.config | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 ch.xxx.maps.domain.exceptions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 ch.xxx.maps.domain.utils | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 frontend.src.angular.e2e.src.app_po | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 frontend.src.angular.src | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 frontend.src.angular.src.app.app_component | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.company-site | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.location | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.main-configuration | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.polygon | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.ring | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.polygon-delete-dialog.polygon-delete-dialog_component | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.auth-guard_service | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.bing-maps_service | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.graphql_service | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.utils | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 frontend.src.angular.src.app.splash.splash_component | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 ch.xxx.maps.adapter.repository | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper | 7 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service | 3 | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller | 5 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
21→5 ch.xxx.maps.adapter.repository uses ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity✕
- Connections
- 12 pairs of types, where a type in ch.xxx.maps.adapter.repository uses a type in ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.
- The types involved
ch.xxx.maps.adapter.repository.CompanySiteRepositoryBean→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.CompanySitech.xxx.maps.adapter.repository.CompanySiteRepositoryBean→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.CompanySiteRepositorych.xxx.maps.adapter.repository.JpaCompanySiteRepository→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.CompanySitech.xxx.maps.adapter.repository.JpaLocationRepository→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.Locationch.xxx.maps.adapter.repository.JpaPolygonRepository→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.Polygonch.xxx.maps.adapter.repository.JpaRingRepository→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.Ringch.xxx.maps.adapter.repository.LocationRepositoryBean→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.Locationch.xxx.maps.adapter.repository.LocationRepositoryBean→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.LocationRepositorych.xxx.maps.adapter.repository.PolygonRepositoryBean→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.Polygonch.xxx.maps.adapter.repository.PolygonRepositoryBean→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.PolygonRepositorych.xxx.maps.adapter.repository.RingRepositoryBean→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.Ringch.xxx.maps.adapter.repository.RingRepositoryBean→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.RingRepository
- Direction
- ch.xxx.maps.adapter.repository uses ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity, so a change to ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity can break ch.xxx.maps.adapter.repository, while a change to ch.xxx.maps.adapter.repository can't break ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: ch.xxx.maps.adapter.repository uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→4 ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper uses ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto✕
- Connections
- 7 pairs of types, where a type in ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper uses a type in ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.
- The types involved
ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.1Locations→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.LocationDtoch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.1Polygons→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.PolygonDtoch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.1Rings→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.RingDtoch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.EntityDtoMapper→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.CompanySiteDtoch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.EntityDtoMapper→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.LocationDtoch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.EntityDtoMapper→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.PolygonDtoch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.EntityDtoMapper→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.RingDto
- Direction
- ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper uses ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto, so a change to ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto can break ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper, while a change to ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper can't break ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→5 ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper uses ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity✕
- Connections
- 7 pairs of types, where a type in ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper uses a type in ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.
- The types involved
ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.1Locations→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.Locationch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.1Polygons→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.Polygonch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.1Rings→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.Ringch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.EntityDtoMapper→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.CompanySitech.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.EntityDtoMapper→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.Locationch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.EntityDtoMapper→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.Polygonch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.EntityDtoMapper→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.Ring
- Direction
- ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper uses ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity, so a change to ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity can break ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper, while a change to ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper can't break ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→4 ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service uses ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service uses a type in ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.
- The types involved
ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service.CompanySiteService→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.CompanySiteDtoch.xxx.maps.usecase.service.CompanySiteService→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.PolygonDtoch.xxx.maps.usecase.service.CompanySiteService→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.RingDto
- Direction
- ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service uses ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto, so a change to ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto can break ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service, while a change to ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service can't break ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→5 ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service uses ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity✕
- Connections
- 8 pairs of types, where a type in ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service uses a type in ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.
- The types involved
ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service.CompanySiteService→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.CompanySitech.xxx.maps.usecase.service.CompanySiteService→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.CompanySiteRepositorych.xxx.maps.usecase.service.CompanySiteService→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.Locationch.xxx.maps.usecase.service.CompanySiteService→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.LocationRepositorych.xxx.maps.usecase.service.CompanySiteService→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.Polygonch.xxx.maps.usecase.service.CompanySiteService→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.PolygonRepositorych.xxx.maps.usecase.service.CompanySiteService→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.Ringch.xxx.maps.usecase.service.CompanySiteService→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.RingRepository
- Direction
- ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service uses ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity, so a change to ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity can break ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service, while a change to ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service can't break ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.entity.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→10 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.company-site✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service uses a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.company-site.
- The types involved
frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service.CompanySiteService→frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.company-site.CompanySite
- Direction
- frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.company-site, so a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.company-site can break frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service, while a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service can't break frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.company-site.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→18 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.graphql_service✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service uses a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.graphql_service.
- The types involved
frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service.CompanySiteService→frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.graphql_service.GraphqlService
- Direction
- frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.graphql_service, so a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.graphql_service can break frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service, while a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service can't break frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.graphql_service.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
25→12 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.main-configuration✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service uses a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.main-configuration.
- The types involved
frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service.ConfigurationService→frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.main-configuration.MainConfiguration
- Direction
- frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.main-configuration, so a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.main-configuration can break frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service, while a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service can't break frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.main-configuration.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
25→18 frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.graphql_service✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service uses a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.graphql_service.
- The types involved
frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service.ConfigurationService→frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.graphql_service.GraphqlService
- Direction
- frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.graphql_service, so a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.graphql_service can break frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service, while a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service can't break frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.graphql_service.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→4 ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller uses ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto✕
- Connections
- 5 pairs of types, where a type in ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller uses a type in ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.
- The types involved
ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller.CompanySiteController→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.CompanySiteDtoch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller.CompanySiteController→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.LocationDtoch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller.CompanySiteController→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.PolygonDtoch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller.CompanySiteController→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.RingDtoch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller.ConfigurationController→ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.MainConfigurationDto
- Direction
- ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller uses ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto, so a change to ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto can break ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller, while a change to ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller can't break ch.xxx.maps.domain.model.dto.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→22 ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller uses ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller uses a type in ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.
- The types involved
ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller.CompanySiteController→ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.EntityDtoMapper
- Direction
- ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller uses ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper, so a change to ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper can break ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller, while a change to ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller can't break ch.xxx.maps.usecase.mapper.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→23 ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller uses ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller uses a type in ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service.
- The types involved
ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller.CompanySiteController→ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service.CompanySiteService
- Direction
- ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller uses ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service, so a change to ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service can break ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller, while a change to ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller can't break ch.xxx.maps.usecase.service.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: ch.xxx.maps.adapter.controller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→10 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.company-site✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.company-site.
- The types involved
frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component.CompanySiteComponent→frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.company-site.CompanySitefrontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component.Container→frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.company-site.CompanySite
- Direction
- frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.company-site, so a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.company-site can break frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component, while a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component can't break frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.company-site.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→11 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.location✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.location.
- The types involved
frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component.NewLocation→frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.location.Location
- Direction
- frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.location, so a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.location can break frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component, while a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component can't break frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.location.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→12 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.main-configuration✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.main-configuration.
- The types involved
frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component.Container→frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.main-configuration.MainConfiguration
- Direction
- frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.main-configuration, so a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.main-configuration can break frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component, while a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component can't break frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.main-configuration.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→13 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.polygon✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.polygon.
- The types involved
frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component.CompanySiteComponent→frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.polygon.Polygon
- Direction
- frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.polygon, so a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.polygon can break frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component, while a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component can't break frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.model.polygon.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→17 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.bing-maps_service✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.bing-maps_service.
- The types involved
frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component.CompanySiteComponent→frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.bing-maps_service.BingMapsService
- Direction
- frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.bing-maps_service, so a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.bing-maps_service can break frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component, while a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component can't break frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.bing-maps_service.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→24 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service.
- The types involved
frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component.CompanySiteComponent→frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service.CompanySiteService
- Direction
- frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service, so a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service can break frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component, while a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component can't break frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.company-site_service.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→25 frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses a type in frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service.
- The types involved
frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component.CompanySiteComponent→frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service.ConfigurationService
- Direction
- frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service, so a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service can break frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component, while a change to frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component can't break frontend.src.angular.src.app.services.configuration_service.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: frontend.src.angular.src.app.maps.company-site.company-site_component uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Accessibility
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration | 11 | High / Critical |
| A05:2025 — Injection | 8 | High / Critical |
| A07:2025 — Authentication Failures | 7 | High / Critical |
| A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures | 3 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
Begin by fixing the four unasserted checks in MyArchitectureTests and the single empty test in MapsApplicationTests to ensure test validity. Next, address the leaked secret in REDACTED and expand test coverage to include the eight percent of production modules currently unreachable from existing tests. Finally, codify backup and geo-recovery procedures in infrastructure as code, explicitly documenting recovery time and point objectives to move beyond simple persistence guards.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 4 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with MyArchitectureTests.java (4). | +11.6 pts | Low | Test Quality |
| Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED. | +10.4 pts | Low | Secret Scanning |
| Resolve the 1 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with MapsApplicationTests.java. | +4.6 pts | Low | Test Quality |
| Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery. | +5.9 pts | Medium | DR & Backup |
| Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry). | +4.9 pts | Medium | Test Coverage |
| Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh. | +4.2 pts | Medium | Page structure |
| Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label. | +2.7 pts | Medium | Forms & labels |
| Accessibility linting is already configured — assert with vitest-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI. | +2.1 pts | Medium | A11y enforcement |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 0.0 | Slop | Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 0.9 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 5.1 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 5.1 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 6.1 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 6.3 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED |
| backend/src/test/java/ch/xxx/maps/architecture/MyArchitectureTests.java | 7.2 | Mixed | Test Quality: No assertions: ruleControllerAnnotations |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| backend/src/main/java/ch/xxx/maps/domain/model/entity/CompanySite.java | 7.8 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) |
| backend/src/test/java/ch/xxx/maps/MapsApplicationTests.java | 8.0 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions (empty test): contextLoads |
| backend/src/main/java/ch/xxx/maps/usecase/mapper/EntityDtoMapper.java | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: EntityDtoMapper.java ↔ CompanySiteService.java |
How the grades work
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 78 of 81 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 81 dimensions across the health lenses
- 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, 61 of 238 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 |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository's production source spans .ts, .java, and our analyzer cannot run the .java test suite(s) — so no coverage was collected for the repository as a whole. The JavaScript/TypeScript half did build and run, and its own line coverage came back at 0.9% — but that is a figure for one half of the product, and we do not publish a partial one as if it were complete. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. In the meantime, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`, or JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures and real coverage will be read. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then both halves are read on the next scan.
- D10 Test Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 12 test(s) behind this row are the ones the code-model census could read, and this repository also carries at least 3 test source file(s) (.ts) that it cannot: it reads the test types the .java frontend declared, so a suite in any other language is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
- D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test reliability NOT SCORED: this repository's production source includes .java, and the jvm executor ran against the .java half and could not be re-run to completion inside our analyzer environment — so reliability was not measured for the repository as a whole. The JavaScript/TypeScript (vitest via `npm ci --ignore-scripts` in frontend/src/angular/ (2 tests)): measured (0 flaky) suite(s) did re-run, and came back with 0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s) — but that is a figure for one half of the product, and we do not publish a partial one as if it were complete. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — test reliability is excluded from the score rather than counted. The remedy is our analyzer environment, not a runner nobody has built.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Currency was graded against Maven Central, but whether an artifact is DEPRECATED is not: Maven Central publishes no deprecation marker, exactly as rubygems.org does not. Whether one is UNMAINTAINED is not graded either — no registry publishes a maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Two of this dimension's four signals are therefore unread on a Gradle tree, and its score reflects currency alone.
- D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (2 contributor(s) across 465 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 99% of the history; the other 1 hold 1% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is an ADMISSION gap, not an environment fault: no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here. D22 DOES collect the public API of every language in this tree, and admits a project only when its manifest makes that ecosystem's publication act in a form the marker recognises — so what is missing is not a collector but an admission rule for the publication act this repository makes, if it makes one. The remedy is a better discriminator for that marker — not a collector, and no change to the scan image can close it. The marker's rules are measured to refuse applications, so one refused repository is the rule working as calibrated; several are the evidence that it is too strict. For npm the surface is what a published package.json's entry points (exports, main, module, types) export, followed through the source; an entry that names build output the tree does not commit (dist/, build/) is not followed back to source, because only a tsconfig outDir/rootDir pair states that mapping and a bundler's input lives in executable configuration this engine does not evaluate.
- D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.ts` produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Helm/knative-template/kubTemplate.yaml:53, REDACTED:104, helm/kubernetes-template/kubTemplate.yaml:53, helm/kubernetes-template/kubTemplate.yaml:104 did not read as a pod spec (a templated manifest such as Helm's that is not YAML until rendered, or a workload whose pod spec this check does not locate), so the seccomp/AppArmor profile in force there was not judged and no row about them can appear on this card.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via REDACTED (REDACTED). docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped.
- C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
- C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
- C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
- C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and this repository's Java is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- P1 CI/CD gates — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Which of the two it is cannot be settled from this dimension's evidence; the coverage dimensions report whether a suite exists at all. You can widen what we reach: name the test runner explicitly in the pipeline step (your stack's test command, or a job named for the suite) so the gate is unambiguous to a reader and to this pass.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
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 — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- 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.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement: Egress confinement is read from committed Kubernetes manifests — a policy applied out-of-band (cluster-default deny, a service mesh, or a cloud firewall/security group off-repo) is invisible, and a present NetworkPolicy is declared config, not proof the cluster admission-controller actually enforces it at runtime.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement: Syscall/MAC confinement is read from committed manifests — a profile applied by a cluster-wide PodSecurity default or a mutating webhook off-repo isn't seen, and a declared seccomp/AppArmor profile is config presence, not proof the node's kernel actually loaded and enforced it.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
- 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 click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled 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.
- AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
- AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- 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".
- P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
D4 · Code Duplication
1 duplicated block group(s) detected. One further row reports members as variants of one another; it aggregates block groups already counted above and is not itself counted. Measured on part of this repository only: .ts (42% of production source) was not exposed to THIS dimension's token comparison and is not in this count; duplication there is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with CompanySite.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with CompanySite.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
D5 · Coupling
3 production modules (Gradle+npm), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; edges a convention plugin adds from buildSrc or build-logic are not visible there; 0 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 2 of the 3 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 2 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
D9 · Test Distribution
15 test methods: 14 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 1 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 3 `it`/`test` case(s) across 2 test file(s) declaring at least one beside 12 .NET test method(s); its tier split is read from package names and paths only.
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 5 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 12 tests. Measured on the .java suite only — at least 3 test source file(s) (.ts) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.
What to do
- Resolve the 4 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with MyArchitectureTests.java (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with MapsApplicationTests.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
This repository's Gradle dependency graph was RESOLVED BY A BUILD, across every subproject rather than the root alone: 195 artifact(s) resolved, 195 of them gradable against Maven Central, and 163 behind a shipped release. Where a version was requested and a different one won conflict resolution, the RESOLVED version is what is graded — grading the request would recommend an upgrade already applied. Known CVEs in the same graph are a separate question again, reported under D30.
What to do
- Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
D13 · Secret Scanning
1 secret(s) detected.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 3 declared JVM dependency artifact(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from the POMs Maven Central publishes, over the coordinates this repository's 2 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) declare with a version resolvable from the manifest itself — the same declaration-site closure this analysis reads for dependency currency. The JVM has no lockfile a checkout is guaranteed to carry, so this is deliberately NOT the transitive closure.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted task-comment markers across 2568 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's root README gives a strong overview (author, technologies, build status badges, links to articles), and the frontend/src/angular/README is focused on its directory (Trader app with Angular CLI scaffolding, ng serve, ng test, ng e2e run flow). The architecture/design docs are absent but the outline lists C4 Architecture Diagrams, Rest Branch, GraalVM native image, Kubernetes setup, and Monitoring; these exist in the repository. The visible content is clear and complete for its scope.
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10. — The repository's root README gives a strong overview (author, technologies, build status badges, links to articles), and the frontend/src/angular/README is focused on its directory (Trader app with Angular CLI scaffolding, ng serve, ng test, ng e2e run flow). The architecture/design docs are absent but the outline lists C4 Architecture Diagrams, Rest Branch, GraalVM native image, Kubernetes setup, and Monitoring; these exist in the repository. The visible content is clear and complete for its scope.
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were 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).
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 2 build units (Gradle, npm) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
D28 · Secrets (history)
5 finding(s): 0 critical, 5 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
What to do
- Resolve the 5 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
8 finding(s): 0 critical, 6 high, 2 medium, 0 low. 5 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 5 file(s) — `frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.ts` (line 92), `gradlew` (line 177), `REDACTED`, `helm/kubernetes-template/kubTemplate.yaml`, `helm/minikubeSetup.sh` (line 6, line 17) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 5 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
3 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 1 medium, 0 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
D31 · IaC & Container Security
11 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 9 medium, 0 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
- Resolve the 9 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED (3), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 10 of the 60 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: EntityDtoMapper.java↔CompanySiteService.java 60%
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with EntityDtoMapper.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
D40 · Network Egress Confinement
0/2 network-egress controls present (network policy, egress restriction).
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No network policy finding(s) in Network Egress Confinement. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement
No workload manifest could be read as a pod spec, so no confinement was judged.
What to do
- Improve Kernel & Syscall Confinement — currently 6.0/10. — No workload manifest could be read as a pod spec, so no confinement was judged.
D43 · Malicious Dependencies
No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 6 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AC2 · Forms & labels
- This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. — frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.html:39
- This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label. — frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.html:64
What to do
- Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
AC3 · Page structure
- The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en"). (×2) — backend/src/main/resources/static/index.html:2, frontend/src/angular/base/index.html:2
- A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>. (×2) — backend/src/main/resources/static/index.html:2, frontend/src/angular/base/index.html:2
- No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×2) — backend/src/main/resources/static/index.html:2, frontend/src/angular/base/index.html:2
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.
AC5 · ARIA correctness
AC7 · A11y enforcement
- An a11y linter is configured (Documented) but there's no automated a11y test or CI gate. Add vitest-axe to verify at runtime, then gate it in CI. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 7 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
What to do
- Accessibility linting is already configured — assert with vitest-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
AX1 · Captive dependencies
AX10 · Code composition
AX2 · Stateful singletons
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
AX4 · Dependency direction
AX6 · Interface segregation
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a README to the 2 of 3 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.3 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
- Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
M3 · Folder & project structure
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests — searched for: `microservice`, `service-mesh`, `istio`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (package.json and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, REDACTED); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:14
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests.
P1 · CI/CD gates
What to do
- Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (`./gradlew test` for the toolchain this pipeline already uses) and gate merges on it.
P2 · Observability
P3 · Security & performance tooling
What to do
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
What to do
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P5 · DR & Backup
- A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.
What to do
- Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
P8 · Schema migrations
R1 · Type Safety
What to do
- Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
R10 · Code Duplication
- frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/company-site.service.ts:38 · frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/company-site.service.ts:54 — 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. — frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/company-site.service.ts:38
- frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/graphql.service.ts:28 · frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/graphql.service.ts:38 — 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. — frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/graphql.service.ts:28
What to do
- Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
R3 · Large Files
- frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.ts has 441 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.ts:1
What to do
- Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
R4 · Test Coverage
- No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×11) — frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.ts:1, frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/company-site.service.ts:1, frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/polygon-delete-dialog/polygon-delete-dialog.component.ts:1, …
What to do
- Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
R5 · Dependency Freshness
- 38 outdated package(s); JS/npm CVEs scored in D30
What to do
- Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.
R6 · Tooling
- test ✓ · lint ✓ · typecheck ✗ — read from this repository's package.json scripts and corroborated against its CI workflows. A script counts when its name or command matches the step: `test` for the suite, `lint` or `prettier` for linting, `typecheck`/`type-check`/`tsc` for type checking. ✗ therefore means no script or CI step under those names was found, NOT that the step is absent from your pipeline — a task invoked by a runner this check does not read, or named something else entirely, is not seen and is worth confirming before acting on a cross. A ✓ means the wiring is DECLARED — a script or CI step under those names exists. It is not a statement that the step passes, or that it runs at all: nothing here installs a dependency or executes a suite.
What to do
- Add `tsc --noEmit` as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
R7 · Dead Code
- Unreachable from the 5 application, 8 tooling and 3 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on `npm run build` — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
- no import path from any entry point (5 application, 8 tooling, 3 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make — frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/utils.ts
What to do
- Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene
- Declared in frontend/src/angular/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it. (×3)
What to do
- Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
R9 · Circular Imports
X1 · Async correctness
X12 · Unreachable branch
X13 · Undrained process stream
X14 · Bypassable address classification
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
X16 · Unfloored truncation loop
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
X20 · Mistyped argument guard
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
X22 · Contradicted release guard
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
X25 · Inert configuration knob
X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
X3 · Exception handling
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
X4 · Structured logging
X5 · Nullable reference types
- 0/4 of this repository's type-checking configuration(s) turn on strict null checking (`"strict": true`, or `"strictNullChecks": true`). A configuration that states neither is counted as OFF, because off is tsc's own default; a solution-style one whose `"files"` is empty and whose `"references"` point at other projects is in neither number, because it checks no source itself. Where it is off, `string` admits `null` and `undefined`: passing a value that is null compiles silently and throws on the first property access.
- ~0.8 `!` null assertions per 1k TypeScript source lines — 1 assertion(s) across the 1214 source line(s) of the 22 TypeScript file(s) read, which is the only code the operator asserts anything in (a `!` in a `.js` file is not this operator and was not counted, and one in a file whose null checking is off silences nothing). Densest: frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.ts (1). Each one tells the compiler to trust the author about null, suppressing the very diagnostic `strictNullChecks` exists to produce.
What to do
- The findings name the configuration each number was taken from and, for the assertions, the files that hold them. Turn null checking on where it is off — `"strict": true` in the base tsconfig that the others extend switches `strictNullChecks` on with the rest of the family — and then resolve the assertions rather than adding to them. A `!` on a value the checker could show to be null is a promise the author cannot check from where they are standing, and each one is a `TypeError: Cannot read properties of null` waiting for the path that makes it true; where the value genuinely cannot be null, say something the checker can see instead (narrow it with a test, make the property required, drop the `?`).
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
| Dimension | WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| AC2 · Forms & labels | 1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC3 · Page structure | 1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC5 · ARIA correctness | 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC7 · A11y enforcement | enforcement — no page criterion | Enforcement posture (process) |
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 73% | Adequate — gated by X5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 94% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 75% | Strong | Solid. |
| Readiness | 36% | Weak — gated by D10, R4, P5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 77% | Strong | Solid. |
| Accessibility | 55% | Adequate — gated by AC3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 1 observation(s) recorded · The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- 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.
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
Not included — 45 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No styled element found in the parsed markup — AC6 not applicable here.
- 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
- 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 — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
- 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.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not scored — polyglot repository, one half's runner produced no measurement
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.java), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 1 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — The repository ships application workloads but no cluster-governance resources (CRDs, admission webhooks, or a committed policy engine). Runtime threat-detection (Falco/Tetragon) and admission control (Kyverno/OPA-Gatekeeper/PodSecurity) are cluster-OPERATOR controls owned by the platform, not shipped by an application repo/chart — nothing for this repo to assess.
- 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 measured — polyglot repository, one half has no runner
- DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer; 8 repository port(s) loading or saving an aggregate/entity
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens 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 lens looks for
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected — no HTTP client call or construction in the JVM, JavaScript/TypeScript source (service entry point: backend/src/main/java/ch/xxx/maps/MapsApplication.java:21 (@SpringBootApplication))
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — coverage data present for 15 file(s), but no domain-layer files were identified: no covered file's path contains any of the markers this check keys on (/domain/, /aggregates/, /valueobjects/, /domainmodel/, .domain/, /entities/), which are matched case-insensitively anywhere in the path. With no domain partition there is nothing to compare the web/controller layer against — if this repository keeps its business rules under a folder named none of those, that naming is what the check cannot see, not the domain logic.
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `@Benchmark` in a Java, Kotlin or Scala file importing JMH or kotlinx-benchmark, Jetpack Benchmark's `measureRepeated` in a file importing androidx.benchmark, or JMH/kotlinx-benchmark/androidx.benchmark in a pom.xml, Gradle or sbt build, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's Java code has 1,763 production line(s), 0 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: this repository declares no async functions, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
- R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Java was read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller — a Java request off Android takes no token: it is cancelled through the handle it returns (Future.cancel, Call.cancel, a Disposable), ambiently (io.grpc.Context) or by interrupting its thread, not through a parameter
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Critical — 23 finding(s)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- <input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.html:39
- <input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.html:64
- <html> without a lang backend/src/main/resources/static/index.html:2
- <html> without a lang frontend/src/angular/base/index.html:2
- Document without a <title> backend/src/main/resources/static/index.html:2
- Document without a <title> frontend/src/angular/base/index.html:2
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- No assertions (empty test): contextLoads backend/src/test/java/ch/xxx/maps/MapsApplicationTests.java:25
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
Serious — 43 finding(s)
- No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.ts:1
- No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/company-site.service.ts:1
- No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/polygon-delete-dialog/polygon-delete-dialog.component.ts:1
- No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/graphql.service.ts:1
- No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/splash/splash.component.ts:1
- No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/utils.ts:1
- No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/bing-maps.service.ts:1
- No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/configuration.service.ts:1
- No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/auth-guard.service.ts:1
- No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/main.ts:1
- No test reaches this file frontend/src/angular/src/app/app.routes.ts:1
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- No assertions: ruleControllerAnnotations backend/src/test/java/ch/xxx/maps/architecture/MyArchitectureTests.java:81
- No assertions: ruleExceptionsType backend/src/test/java/ch/xxx/maps/architecture/MyArchitectureTests.java:89
- No assertions: ruleGeneralCodingRules backend/src/test/java/ch/xxx/maps/architecture/MyArchitectureTests.java:110
- No assertions: ruleGeneralCodingRulesLoggers backend/src/test/java/ch/xxx/maps/architecture/MyArchitectureTests.java:104
- Page without a main landmark backend/src/main/resources/static/index.html:2
- Page without a main landmark frontend/src/angular/base/index.html:2
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Change coupling: EntityDtoMapper.java ↔ CompanySiteService.java backend/src/main/java/ch/xxx/maps/usecase/mapper/EntityDtoMapper.java:1
- REDACTED
- Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) backend/src/main/java/ch/xxx/maps/domain/model/entity/CompanySite.java:66
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) backend/src/main/java/ch/xxx/maps/domain/model/entity/CompanySite.java:67
- No DR/backup evidence
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/company-site.service.ts:38
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/graphql.service.ts:28
- frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.ts: 441 lines of code frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.ts:1
- Dependency Freshness
- No typecheck script
- Dead file (~48 LoC) frontend/src/angular/src/app/services/utils.ts
- Unused dependency '@angular-eslint/schematics'
- Unused dependency '@angular/language-service'
- Unused dependency 'npm-run-all'
Minor — 9 finding(s)
- Accessibility enforcement below the top rung
- No ADRs found
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- No network policy
- No ADRs
- README/code drift README.md:14
- Strict null checking is not enabled everywhere the repository type-checks
- Null assertions (`!`) reduce the strict null checking score
Minor — 163 finding(s)
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-actuator
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-logging
- Outdated (compile): ch.qos.logback:logback-classic
- Outdated (compile): ch.qos.logback:logback-core
- Outdated (compile): org.slf4j:slf4j-api
- Outdated (compile): org.apache.logging.log4j:log4j-to-slf4j
- Outdated (compile): org.apache.logging.log4j:log4j-api
- Outdated (compile): org.jspecify:jspecify
- Outdated (compile): biz.aQute.bnd:biz.aQute.bnd.annotation
- Outdated (compile): org.osgi:org.osgi.resource
- Outdated (compile): com.google.errorprone:error_prone_annotations
- Outdated (compile): org.slf4j:jul-to-slf4j
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-autoconfigure
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework.boot:spring-boot
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework:spring-core
- Outdated (compile): commons-logging:commons-logging
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework:spring-context
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework:spring-aop
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework:spring-beans
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework:spring-expression
- Outdated (compile): io.micrometer:micrometer-observation
- Outdated (compile): io.micrometer:micrometer-commons
- Outdated (compile): org.yaml:snakeyaml
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-micrometer-metrics
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-655535d373364ffb85965c9e885c40a7/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-655535d373364ffb85965c9e885c40a7/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off . | 8 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 3 | artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 11 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 1 file(s) — `frontend/src/angular/src/app/maps/company-site/company-site.component.ts` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — The repository ships application workloads but no cluster-governance resources (CRDs, admission webhooks, or a committed policy engine). Runtime threat-detection (Falco/Tetragon) and admission control (Kyverno/OPA-Gatekeeper/PodSecurity) are cluster-OPERATOR controls owned by the platform, not shipped by an application repo/chart — nothing for this repo to assess. | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json |