Public report of Avanade/Liquid-Application-Framework, published 21 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive report Measured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey → Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 21 October 2026, 21:09 UTC · Survey ID cd_f990f59ec98d425a8a13a27b5657fdac

Avanade/Liquid-Application-Framework

Measured 21 October 2026, 21:06 UTC, at code version 6476e17

Code coverage: not measuredIL efficiency: not measured

Code coverage is not measured: The repo's test suite did not build.

IL efficiency is not measured: The target did not build.

CAI score 36out of 100 Provisional Down 2 since the last survey

The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.

Architecture 67 Adequate Production Readiness 61 Adequate Performance 60 Adequate Code Health 48 Weak Maturity 37 Weak Security and Compliance 24 Critical

A small codebase: 11,660 lines of product code in 48 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.1 person-years · Weakest lens: Security and Compliance, 24

Findings by how serious they are

58 critical 268 serious 163 minor

7 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
21 October 2026, 21:06 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.

The code didn't build, so the score is provisional
Watchdog couldn't build the code: the build stopped with 21 errors. The dimensions that need a working build, such as complexity, duplication and dead code, were measured on an incomplete picture of the code, so their grades and the score are provisional. Fix the build errors and run the survey again for a final score. The first errors: CS0246: The type or namespace name 'ENTITYIDTYPE' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?)

The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸

75of 81 dimensions measured by tools. The other 6 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
442of 489 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 47 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
81dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 11,660 lines of product code in 48 projects.
Chapters

Executive summary

Avanade/Liquid-Application-Framework scores 36 out of 100 and is rated Provisional, because the code didn't build, so the ratings may change once it does. The lenses that score higher are Architecture at 67, Production Readiness at 61, Performance at 60, Code Health at 48, and Maturity at 37.

The score is lower than those lenses because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Security and Compliance, which scores 24 and is rated Critical. The project has no Access Controls, which scores 0 out of 10, and Static Analysis (SAST) scores 1 out of 10, so until Access Controls reaches 4, Security and Compliance can't be rated higher than Adequate. Protecting endpoints by default-deny with authorization or imperative guard methods is the first action, and if Security and Compliance rose to 70, the score would rise from 36 to about 47.

Fifty-eight findings are critical, including 16 mutable reusable workflow references, 8 write-only private fields, 8 suppressed warnings in project files, 7 mutable action tags, 5 captive dependencies, 4 commented out assertions, 3 shell injection risks, 3 secret interpolations, 2 unpinned package installs, 1 test project that verifies nothing, and 1 disabled TLS certificate validation. Resolving the end-of-life runtime finding and the missing architecture decision records are also first actions that raise the score by about 5 points each with low effort.

Watchdog couldn't measure Dependency Hygiene because it is not measured, couldn't measure Schema migrations because the mechanism could not be identified, and couldn't measure Runtime accessibility because the service did not build. The product code is 11,660 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €18,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 48 Weak, capped by Solution Shape and Explicit Debt Architecture 67 Adequate, capped by Stateful singletons Maturity 37 Weak, capped by Knowledge Freshness, Architecture documentation and Documentation accuracy Production Readiness 61 Adequate Security and Compliance 24 ⚠ Critical, capped by Static Analysis (SAST), Supply-chain Provenance & Signing, Data Protection and Access Controls Performance 60 Adequate

A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Security and Compliance 24 · counts for 46%Maturity 37 · counts for 25%Code Health 48 · counts for 14%Performance 60 · counts for 8%Production Readiness 61 · counts for 4%Architecture 67 · counts for 2%

If Security and Compliance rose from 24 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 36 to about 47.

Code composition: what the lines of code are
Business logic 12%Supporting code 47%Tests 41%
New since the last survey: 82 findings

These 82 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 6 October 2026.

Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.

Fixed since the last survey: 17 findings

These 17 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 6 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

  • Coupling · Off the main sequence: PROJECTNAME.Domain (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Crud.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain)
  • Coupling · Off the main sequence: PROJECTNAME.Domain (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain)
  • Coupling · Off the main sequence: PROJECTNAME.Domain (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain)
  • Dependency Hygiene · Vulnerable: AutoMapper
  • Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated: xunit
  • Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated: Azure.Identity
  • Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated: Microsoft.Identity.Client
  • Dependency Hygiene · Prerelease dependency: Azure.AI.OpenAI
  • Dependency Hygiene · Prerelease dependency: Liquid.Core
  • Dependency Hygiene · Prerelease dependency: Liquid.WebApi.Http
  • Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
  • Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED
  • Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidContext.cs
  • Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidContext.cs
  • Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidContextNotifications.cs
  • Captive dependencies · Captive dependency: singleton KafkaProducer captures transient IKafkaFactory src/Liquid.Messaging.Kafka/KafkaProducer.cs
  • Captive dependencies · Captive dependency: singleton KafkaConsumer captures transient IKafkaFactory src/Liquid.Messaging.Kafka/KafkaConsumer.cs
Rebuild cost: about €18,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild€5,900 to €30,000, for 99 to 311 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problemVery high, 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 36. 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.
SizeSmall: 11,660 lines of product code, of which 51% is declarations and boilerplate, 28% straight logic and 20% logic with branches
Comment linesThe estimate prices 7,607 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 11,660 lines but aren't priced as work.

How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty.

Top priorities

The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.

1
Resolve the 1 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer.csproj.
Raises the score by about 5 points · Low effort · Platform End-of-Life
2
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 5 points · Low effort · ADR Quality
3
Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.
Raises the score by about 9 points · Medium effort · Access Controls

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.

If you do one thing first · First action
Fix the build. The code didn't build, so the dimensions that need a working build were measured on an incomplete picture of the code, and every grade in this report is provisional. Once the build works, the next survey gives a final score. The compiler's first errors: CS0246: The type or namespace name 'ENTITYIDTYPE' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?)
Based on: Solution Shape
Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €18,000 to build again, about 0.1 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Security and Compliance, at 24 (Critical). Security and Compliance is about how well the product is protected, and how it handles personal data. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Security and Compliance also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Security and Compliance grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Security and Compliance actions in Top priorities.

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Each box is a bounded context (its layer projects grouped, or a project count when large); arrows show dependencies between contexts. A shared kernel is where many arrows converge.

arch Liquid.Cache.Memory Memory Liquid.Cache.NCache NCache Liquid.Cache.Redis Redis Liquid.Cache.SqlServer SqlServer Liquid.Core Core Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm ElasticApm Liquid.Dataverse Dataverse Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi OpenAi Liquid.Messaging.Kafka Kafka Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq RabbitMq Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus ServiceBus Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework EntityFramework Liquid.Repository.Mongo Mongo Liquid.Repository.OData OData PROJECTNAME.Domain (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Crud.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain) Domain) PROJECTNAME.Domain (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain) Domain) PROJECTNAME.Domain (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain) Domain) PROJECTNAME.WebApi (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Crud.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.WebApi) WebApi) PROJECTNAME.WebApi (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Crud.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.WebApi)->PROJECTNAME.Domain (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Crud.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain) PROJECTNAME.WebApi (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.WebApi) WebApi) PROJECTNAME.WebApi (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.WebApi)->PROJECTNAME.Domain (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain) PROJECTNAME.WorkerService (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.WorkerService) WorkerService) PROJECTNAME.WorkerService (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.WorkerService)->PROJECTNAME.Domain (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain) __more__ +7 more projects

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.

76 modules, with 56 dependencies between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 36 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →1 Liquid.Core.Base2 Liquid.Core.Entities3 Liquid.Core.GenAi.Enums4 Liquid.Core.GenAi.Settings5 Liquid.Core.Localization.Entities6 Liquid.Core.Settings7 Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi.Settings8 Liquid.Messaging.Kafka.Settings9 Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq.Settings10 Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus.Settings11 Liquid.Repository.Mongo.Settings12 Liquid.WebApi.Http.Controllers13 Liquid.Ai.Core.Interfaces14 Liquid.Core.Exceptions15 Liquid.Core.GenAi.Entities16 Liquid.Core.Interfaces17 Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm.Implementations18 PROJECTNAME.Domain.Entities19 Liquid.Core.AbstractMappers20 Liquid.Core.Decorators21 Liquid.Core.GenAi22 Liquid.Core.Implementations23 Liquid.Core.Localization24 Liquid.Messaging.Kafka25 Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq26 Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus27 Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework28 Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.Exceptions29 Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.Extensions30 Liquid.Repository.Mongo31 Liquid.Repository.Mongo.Exceptions32 Liquid.Repository.OData33 Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage34 Liquid.WebApi.Http.Implementations35 Liquid.WebApi.Http.Middlewares36 PROJECTNAME.Domain.Handlers37 PROJECTNAME.WebApi.Controllers38 PROJECTNAME.WorkerService39 Liquid.Dataverse40 Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi
1 Liquid.Core.Base
2 Liquid.Core.Entities
3 Liquid.Core.GenAi.Enums
4 Liquid.Core.GenAi.Settings
5 Liquid.Core.Localization.Entities
6 Liquid.Core.Settings
7 Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi.Settings
8 Liquid.Messaging.Kafka.Settings
9 Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq.Settings
10 Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus.Settings
11 Liquid.Repository.Mongo.Settings
12 Liquid.WebApi.Http.Controllers
13 Liquid.Ai.Core.Interfaces1
14 Liquid.Core.Exceptions1
15 Liquid.Core.GenAi.Entities2
16 Liquid.Core.Interfaces4
17 Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm.Implementations1
18 PROJECTNAME.Domain.Entities1
19 Liquid.Core.AbstractMappers12
20 Liquid.Core.Decorators334
21 Liquid.Core.GenAi211
22 Liquid.Core.Implementations1111
23 Liquid.Core.Localization312
24 Liquid.Messaging.Kafka242
25 Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq262
26 Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus212
27 Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework3
28 Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.Exceptions1
29 Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.Extensions1
30 Liquid.Repository.Mongo63
31 Liquid.Repository.Mongo.Exceptions2
32 Liquid.Repository.OData3
33 Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage11
34 Liquid.WebApi.Http.Implementations1
35 Liquid.WebApi.Http.Middlewares32
36 PROJECTNAME.Domain.Handlers614
37 PROJECTNAME.WebApi.Controllers11
38 PROJECTNAME.WorkerService111
39 Liquid.Dataverse1
40 Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi31221
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
1 Liquid.Core.Base2 Liquid.Core.Entities3 Liquid.Core.GenAi.Enums4 Liquid.Core.GenAi.Settings5 Liquid.Core.Localization.Entities6 Liquid.Core.Settings7 Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi.Settings8 Liquid.Messaging.Kafka.Settings9 Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq.Settings10 Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus.Settings11 Liquid.Repository.Mongo.Settings12 Liquid.WebApi.Http.Controllers13 Liquid.Ai.Core.Interfaces14 Liquid.Core.Exceptions15 Liquid.Core.GenAi.Entities16 Liquid.Core.Interfaces17 Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm.Implementations18 PROJECTNAME.Domain.Entities19 Liquid.Core.AbstractMappers20 Liquid.Core.Decorators21 Liquid.Core.GenAi22 Liquid.Core.Implementations23 Liquid.Core.Localization24 Liquid.Messaging.Kafka25 Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq26 Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus27 Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework28 Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.Exceptions29 Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.Extensions30 Liquid.Repository.Mongo31 Liquid.Repository.Mongo.Exceptions32 Liquid.Repository.OData33 Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage34 Liquid.WebApi.Http.Implementations35 Liquid.WebApi.Http.Middlewares36 PROJECTNAME.Domain.Handlers37 PROJECTNAME.WebApi.Controllers38 PROJECTNAME.WorkerService39 Liquid.Dataverse40 Liquid.GenAi.OpenAiLiquid.Core.Base1Liquid.Core.Entities2Liquid.Core.GenAi.Enums3Liquid.Core.GenAi.Settings4Liquid.Core.Localization.Entities5Liquid.Core.Settings6Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi.Settings7Liquid.Messaging.Kafka.Settings8Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq.Settings9Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus.Settings10Liquid.Repository.Mongo.Settings11Liquid.WebApi.Http.Controllers12Liquid.Ai.Core.Interfaces13Liquid.Core.Exceptions14Liquid.Core.GenAi.Entities15Liquid.Core.Interfaces16Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm.Implementations17PROJECTNAME.Domain.Entities18Liquid.Core.AbstractMappers19Liquid.Core.Decorators20Liquid.Core.GenAi21Liquid.Core.Implementations22Liquid.Core.Localization23Liquid.Messaging.Kafka24Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq25Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus26Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework27Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.Exceptions28Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.Extensions29Liquid.Repository.Mongo30Liquid.Repository.Mongo.Exceptions31Liquid.Repository.OData32Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage33Liquid.WebApi.Http.Implementations34Liquid.WebApi.Http.Middlewares35PROJECTNAME.Domain.Handlers36PROJECTNAME.WebApi.Controllers37PROJECTNAME.WorkerService38Liquid.Dataverse39Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi4011241112334211111131224226221231163231113261411111131221+36 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 48% · Weak · gated by D18, D17 ·

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 9.6 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 9.8 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.9 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 7.3 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X32 · Repo Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly 10.0
The Bad
IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 6.9 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 5.4 X4 · Repo Structured logging 5.1 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 5.2
The Ugly
D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 0.0 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 3.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 4.6

At a glance — Architecture · 67% · Adequate · gated by AX2 ·

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 8.7 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0
The Bad
D22 · .NET / C# Internal API Consistency 6.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 5.1 AX10 · Repo Code composition 6.7
The Ugly
AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 3.7

At a glance — Maturity · 37% · Weak · gated by D34, M2, M4 ·

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 9.8 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 9.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 9.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0
The Bad
D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 5.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.7
The Ugly
D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 61% · Adequate ·

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 9.5 D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 7.2 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 7.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 10.0
The Bad
P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 6.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0
The Ugly
P2 · Repo Observability 4.7

At a glance — Security · 24% · Critical · gated by D29, D36, C1, C2 ·

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 10.0
The Bad
D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 6.0
The Ugly
D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 1.0 D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 2.5 C1 · Repo Data Protection 3.0 C2 · Repo Access Controls 0.0 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 4.0

At a glance — Performance · 60% · Adequate ·

The Bad
PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.0 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 6.1

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A05:2025 — Injection49High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures22Medium

Roadmap

First, secure all endpoints by enforcing default-deny access controls through explicit authorization attributes or imperative guards in every handler. Next, tighten supply-chain security by restricting token permissions in the specified CI/CD workflow files and encrypt sensitive data at rest using a vault, unless infrastructure handles this. Finally, maintain system stability and knowledge by removing orphaned files from key entry points and updating the messaging consumer project to resolve the end-of-life runtime warning.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer.csproj.+4.6 ptsLowPlatform End-of-Life
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+4.6 ptsLowADR Quality
Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.+8.6 ptsMediumAccess Controls
Resolve the 17 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED.+6.3 ptsMediumSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).+5.8 ptsMediumData Protection
Resolve the 63 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with IServiceCollectionExtensions.cs (4), Program.cs (3), IServiceCollectionExtension.cs (2).+4.9 ptsMediumKnowledge Freshness
Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3).+2.3 ptsLowStatic Analysis (SAST)
Stop accepting every TLS certificate: remove the always-true validation callback so the platform verifies the chain, hostname and expiry. If one self-signed certificate must be trusted, pin it by public key or thumbprint on the single handler that needs it and reject all others — never process-wide.+4.5 ptsMediumWeb-Security Posture

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 153 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 1% slop · 28% mixed · 71% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED0.7SlopStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED0.8SlopStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Liquid.Repository.Mongo.csproj5.5MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj

How the grades work

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

Critical — 58

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

Serious — 268

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

Minor — 163

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

Could not be resolved — 7

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. 75 of 81 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 6 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 81 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D34D35D36D44AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6AX8AX9C1C2ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6P7PF1PF2PF3S1X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X2X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 442 of 489 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivySecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a16049-1a41-7343-995f-dabce5c2e2d2.

The exact command behind every deep-scan dimension — tool, version, invocation and retained raw output — is in Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail.

Run transparency — what happened this run

What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.

  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — 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. `dotnet list package` did not return usable output (restore or query failed); no outdated/vulnerable/deprecated data to assess. The tool said: /usr/share/dotnet/sdk/10.0.400/NuGet.targets(521,5): error MSB3202: The project file "src/Liquid.Adapter.Dataverse/Liquid.Adapter.Dataverse.csproj" was not found. [Liquid.Adapters.sln].
  • D18 Solution Shape — 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 scan loads every live solution in the repository into one workspace. Every score, lens, and finding here reflects the projects of `Liquid.Application.Framework.sln`, `templates/Liquid.Templates.sln`, `templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Crud.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Microservice.sln`, `samples/Liquid.Sample.WebApi.sln`, `samples/Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer.sln`, `templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Microservice.sln`, `templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Microservice.sln`, `samples/Liquid.Sample.Dataverse.sln`, `Liquid.Adapters.sln`; 1 further solution(s) found in this tree (`Liquid.Adapters.sln`) could not be added to it — their project list could not be read, or none of their projects opened — so their code is not represented in the headline. (This is a count of the solutions discovery found and could not show to be covered by the analyzed ones — not a claim about how many solution files the repository contains.) If one of them is an archived or vendored tree, declaring it — `.gitattributes` (`path/** linguist-vendored`) or `.editorconfig` (`[path/**] generated_code = true`) — excludes it from discovery the same way generated code is. You can widen what we reach: if one of these solutions is live code, check that it opens on its own (`dotnet build <solution>`); if it is archived or vendored, declare it so.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — 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. `dotnet build` exited 1 with a compiler/MSBuild diagnostic, so there were no assemblies to read IL from. The build itself is D18's row, with the ask; nothing further is charged here.
  • 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 ToolchainServer (templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Project/PROJECTNAME.WebApi). the service did not build — `dotnet build 'PROJECTNAME.WebApi.csproj'` exited 1: ; runtime evidence skipped (launch chosen because templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Project/PROJECTNAME.WebApi/PROJECTNAME.WebApi.csproj is a Microsoft.NET.Sdk.Web project).
  • P8 Schema migrations — 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. Every other migration runner — DbUp, FluentMigrator, Evolve, Flyway, Liquibase, RoundhousE, a hand-rolled versioned-SQL runner — is invisible to the detector, so an absence here is our blind spot rather than a missing migration strategy in the repository. The card abstains instead of scoring. You can widen what we reach: if the schema is created and evolved by a tool other than EF Core migrations, naming it lets us teach the detector to read it.
  • PF3 Async & latency 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. 68 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 108.
  • Package restore incomplete — third-party types were unresolved in part of the solution — NuGet restore did not complete for one or more projects, so those projects were analysed with framework references only: every check keyed on a third-party type saw an error type there and reported nothing. Findings on those projects are a lower bound; run `dotnet restore` on them and rescan.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • 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.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • 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.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • 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.
  • 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 Dockerfile (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.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
  • ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (6): D19, D21, D22, D24, ED5, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.6 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was DataverseEntityMapper.JsonToEntity at 20.

DataverseEntityMapper.JsonToEntity (cyclomatic 20)src/Liquid.Dataverse/DataverseEntityMapper.cs:73

What to do

  1. Bring the 1 body over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with DataverseEntityMapper.JsonToEntity (cyclomatic 20). — Refactoring it lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 9.6 to about 10.0/10.
  2. Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.8 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was DataverseEntityMapper.JsonToEntity at 17.

DataverseEntityMapper.JsonToEntity (cognitive 17)src/Liquid.Dataverse/DataverseEntityMapper.cs:73

What to do

  1. Bring the 1 body over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with DataverseEntityMapper.JsonToEntity (cognitive 17). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 9.8 to about 10.0/10.
  2. Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D3 · God Classes10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

D4 · Code Duplication9.9 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

3 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2)src/Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage/LiquidStorageAzure.cs:30
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2)src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtension.cs:32
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)src/Liquid.Messaging.Kafka/KafkaProducer.cs:43

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with LiquidStorageAzure.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with IServiceCollectionLiquidExtension.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with KafkaProducer.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.

Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

0 of 33 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.

Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.

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

273 test methods: 273 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality9.5 / 10Adequategated by 5 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 5 zero-assertion, 16 mock references across 273 tests.

Assertions commented out: AddElasticApmTelemetry_WhenEnvironement_Enabled · ×4test/Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm.Tests/IServiceCollectionExtensionsTests.cs:93
Test project verifies nothing: Liquid.Cache.NCache.Teststest/Liquid.Cache.NCache.Tests/IServiceCollectionExtensionTest.cs:23
No assertions: MessageHandler_WhenProcessExecutedSucessfullytest/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq.Tests/RabbitMqConsumerTest.cs:91
Mock framework: NSubstitute · ×16

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 Assertions commented out finding(s) in Test Quality — start with IServiceCollectionExtensionsTests.cs (2), IServiceCollectionExtensionTest.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Test project verifies nothing finding(s) in Test Quality — start with IServiceCollectionExtensionTest.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with RabbitMqConsumerTest.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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

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

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

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D14 · License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.

Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.

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

0 of 367 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 63 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 188 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.

Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi/OpenAiAdapter.cs. Counted over 63 of the 237 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D17 · Explicit Debt0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.

Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.

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

137 deducted debt markers + 2 dead symbols across 11660 LoC in the .NET projects (5.2/KLoC) → score 0.0.

WriteOnlyPrivateField · ×8samples/src/Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer/Worker.cs:14
NoWarnInCsproj · ×8src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Liquid.Repository.Mongo.csproj:22
CoverageExclusion · ×104src/Liquid.Core/AbstractMappers/LiquidMapper.cs:10
TodoComment · ×12templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Crud.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Entities/ENTITYNAME.cs:8
CommentedOutCode · ×3test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Core/LocalizationTest.cs:5

+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 104 CoverageExclusion finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with OcrResult.cs (4), IServiceCollectionExtensions.cs (4), GenAiOptions.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (104 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 8 WriteOnlyPrivateField finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Worker.cs (3), COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAMEHandler.cs (3), DataverseClientFactoryTests.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 8 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Liquid.Repository.Mongo.csproj (4), Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.csproj (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).
  4. Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D18 · Solution Shape3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.

Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

48 projects, 414 source files, 16956 hand-written lines of code (11660 production / 5296 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), 22 inter-project edges (build failed). Measured across 9 solutions loaded as one workspace: `Liquid.Application.Framework.sln`, `templates/Liquid.Templates.sln`, `templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Crud.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Microservice.sln`, `samples/Liquid.Sample.WebApi.sln`, `samples/Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer.sln`, `templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Microservice.sln`, `templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Microservice.sln`, `samples/Liquid.Sample.Dataverse.sln`, `Liquid.Adapters.sln`.

Build failed
Solution references 4 projects that do not existLiquid.Adapters.sln
Thin analysable surface across projects: PROJECTNAME.Repositorytemplates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.DbContext.Project/PROJECTNAME.Repository/PROJECTNAME.Repository.csproj

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Build failed finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Solution references 4 projects that do not exist finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with Liquid.Adapters.sln. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Thin analysable surface across projects finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with PROJECTNAME.Repository.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

Liquid Application Framework's documentation is comprehensive: the root README gives an overview of what Liquid is (a multi-cloud framework that abstracts boilerplate so developers focus on business logic) and links to a lightweight architectures doc, plus a dedicated 'What is Liquid?' section. The About-Liquid.md document explains the framework's purpose, benefits, and architecture with concrete examples such as how it decouples application components from platform-specific dependencies (platform abstraction layer), and covers key concepts like business-logic segregation, API-as-formal-object-models, and microservice sizing. A separate Business-Logic-Segregation doc shows how Liquid hides complexity of connecting to a data repository while keeping the core code clean. The Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application document is a work-in-progress WIP note with a detailed devops environment setup and coding steps, but its outline (Prepare your DevOps environment; Code your microservices; Connect your front-end to your APIs; Develop tests and mocks; Add advanced behavior) matches the content present. The architecture/design docs are well-organized and cover multi-platform components replacement, RabbitMQ/SMS integration, and governance.

XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Core · ×21src/Liquid.Core/Liquid.Core.csproj

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

1 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

Inconsistent spelling of the word 'Notification' in test method names. One uses 'Notificaton' (missing 'i') and the other uses 'Contexthas' (missing space/capitalization) and 'Notifications'. Specifically, 'InsertNotificaton' is a typo compared to the correct 'Notifications' used elsewhere.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyAdequate◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.

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

4 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 171 exposed types.

Inconsistent query method naming and intent. 'FindByIdAsync' is specific, 'FindAllAsync' is specific, but 'WhereAsync' is generic. Standard EF/Core conventions usually prefer 'GetByIdAsync' or 'FindAsync' for single entities and 'Where' for filtering, but mixing 'Find' and 'Where' without a clear pattern (e.g., 'Find' for simple lookups, 'Where' for complex queries) is confusing. More critically, 'FindAllAsync' is often considered an anti-pattern in repositories (returning all entities), whereas 'WhereAsync' with no predicate is the standard way to achieve this. Having both 'FindAllAsync' and 'WhereAsync' (which can do the same thing) creates redundancy.
Inconsistent naming convention for retrieval operations. 'ReadBlobsByName', 'ReadBlobsByTags', and 'GetAllBlobs' mix 'Read' and 'Get' verbs and pluralize 'Blobs' inconsistently with the singular 'blobName' parameter. 'GetAllBlobs' implies a collection, while 'ReadBlobsByName' implies a collection but likely returns a single item (or a list with one item). The verb 'Read' is used for specific lookups, while 'Get' is used for bulk retrieval.
Typo in method names: 'ClassifyDocumenAsync' and 'ClassifyDocumenFromUriAsync' are missing the final 't' in 'Document'. This is a clear inconsistency with 'AnalyzeDocumentAsync' and 'AnalyzeDocumentFromUriAsync'.
While the interface and implementation are consistent, the naming 'Get' for a context dictionary lookup is ambiguous compared to 'GetValue' or 'TryGetValue'. However, the more significant issue is the lack of a 'TryGet' pattern, which is standard for dictionary-like access to avoid exceptions. This is a design inconsistency with best practices rather than an internal API inconsistency, but it affects consistency with standard .NET patterns.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Inconsistent query method naming and intent. 'FindByIdAsync' is… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming convention for retrieval operations.… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Typo in method names finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D24 · Comment ValueAdequate◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.

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

12 valuable / 0 redundant across 179 sampled comments.

What to do

  1. Improve Comment Value — currently 5.0/10. — 12 valuable / 0 redundant across 179 sampled comments.

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md.

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether each project is a focused, coherent unit rather than an oversized grab-bag.

Method: Project size overshoot penalties (LoC / public-type count / namespace count, 2-of-3 flag) weighted by log magnitude. Exhaustive across projects, deterministic, LLM-independent.

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

0 of 48 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D27 · Navigability8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

91 % of calls cross a namespace and 13 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

What to do

  1. Improve Navigability — currently 8.7/10. — 91 % of calls cross a namespace and 13 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 1.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

49 finding(s): 0 critical, 31 high, 18 medium, 0 low. 23 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. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

+ 5 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
  2. No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 16 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 (16 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
  3. No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 7 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 (7 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.

Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.

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

63 of 63 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/ObjectExtension.cs. Counted over 63 of the 237 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×63src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/ObjectExtension.cs:1
Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 63 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with IServiceCollectionExtensions.cs (4), Program.cs (3), IServiceCollectionExtension.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (63 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

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

Strongest change-coupling: MongoClientFactory.cs↔MongoDataContext.cs 60%

Change coupling: MongoClientFactory.cs ↔ MongoDataContext.cssrc/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/MongoClientFactory.cs:1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with MongoClientFactory.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing2.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 17 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (17 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D44 · Platform End-of-Life6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 48 platform declaration(s) and 0 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.

End-of-life runtime: .NET net6.0samples/src/Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer/Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer.csproj:4

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX1 · Captive dependencies5.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `ServiceBusProducer` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IServiceBusFactory factory`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IServiceBusFactory` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes. — src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusProducer.cs:21
  • `ServiceBusConsumer` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IServiceBusFactory factory`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IServiceBusFactory` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes. — src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusConsumer.cs:34
  • `RabbitMqProducer` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IRabbitMqFactory factory`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IRabbitMqFactory` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes. — src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqProducer.cs:27
  • `RabbitMqConsumer` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IRabbitMqFactory factory`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IRabbitMqFactory` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes. — src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqConsumer.cs:40
  • `LiquidDataverse` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IDataverseClientFactory serviceFactory`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IDataverseClientFactory` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes. — src/Liquid.Dataverse/LiquidDataverse.cs:21

What to do

  • Don't inject scoped/transient services into singletons; resolve them per-use via IServiceScopeFactory or a factory delegate, or align the lifetimes.
AX10 · Code composition6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.

Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.

Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.

AX2 · Stateful singletons3.7 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

  • `ServiceBusConsumer` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_messageProcessor; e.g. `_messageProcessor` at line 48). — src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusConsumer.cs:15
  • `KafkaConsumer` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_client; e.g. `_client` at line 51). — src/Liquid.Messaging.Kafka/KafkaConsumer.cs:16
  • `RabbitMqFactory` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_connection, _model; e.g. `_connection` at line 39). — src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqFactory.cs:10
  • `RabbitMqConsumer` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_channelModel; e.g. `_channelModel` at line 61). — src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqConsumer.cs:21
  • `BlobClientFactory` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_clients; e.g. `_clients` at line 35). — src/Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage/BlobClientFactory.cs:7
  • `DataverseEntityMapper` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_entitiesMetadata; e.g. `_entitiesMetadata` at line 52). — src/Liquid.Dataverse/DataverseEntityMapper.cs:14
  • `OpenAiClientFactory` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_openAiClients; e.g. `_openAiClients` at line 76). — src/Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi/OpenAiClientFactory.cs:13

What to do

  • Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.
AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).

Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.

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

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

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

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

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

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C1 · Data Protection3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.

What to do

  • Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
C2 · Access Controls0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — a framework authorization attribute/decorator or policy, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.

  • No [Authorize]/policies and no imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) were found — endpoints may be unprotected.
  • `SampleController.Get` serves requests and nothing authorizes it: no [Authorize] or RequireAuthorization on it or its controller/group, no fallback policy, no auth-gate middleware and no imperative guard in this codebase. — REDACTED:19
  • `SampleController.Post` serves requests and nothing authorizes it: no [Authorize] or RequireAuthorization on it or its controller/group, no fallback policy, no auth-gate middleware and no imperative guard in this codebase. — REDACTED:22

What to do

  • Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.
ED5 · Idempotency7.2 / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

Other · Readiness — Whether retry-prone mutations (command handlers + message/event consumers) are idempotent so an at-least-once redelivery or client retry doesn't double-apply the effect — heuristic at-risk detection confirmed by language model, advisory.

Method: Roslyn heuristic (any mutation, ungated): command handlers and message/event consumers that mutate persistent state without a visible idempotency guard (exists/dedup check, upsert, idempotency-key/inbox, conditional/versioned write, fixed-value set) flagged as at-risk; each at-risk candidate then confirmed or cleared by a language model as genuinely non-idempotent versus naturally-idempotent. Advisory without a model (heuristic-only, degraded), per-candidate judged with one.

Coverage: Population: retry-prone mutations — command handlers (CQRS write side) + message/event consumers (IConsumer/I*EventHandler) — that mutate persistent state; runs on any repo with mutations, not only event-driven ones. The at-risk subset (no obvious guard) is a HEURISTIC candidate set, each then LLM-JUDGED non-idempotent vs safe; a handler outside those conventions, or a guard the LLM can't confirm, is bounded by the sample. Degrades to heuristic-only when no model is configured.

  • `Handlers.CreateENTITYNAMEHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Crud.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/CreateENTITYNAME/CreateENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:19
  • `Handlers.SampleEventCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — samples/src/Liquid.Sample.Domain/Handlers/SamplePost/SampleEventCommandHandler.cs:28

What to do

  • Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — src/Liquid.Repository.OData/ODataRepository.cs:11

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs6.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

  • `FindAllAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs:60
  • `FindByIdAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs:68
  • `WhereAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs:95
  • `DataContext` is a shipped property whose accessors only throw NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — src/Liquid.Repository.OData/ODataRepository.cs:11
  • `Handle` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. (×3) — templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Domain.Project/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAME/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:20, templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAME/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:20, templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAME/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:20
  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×5) — templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Crud.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/RemoveENTITYNAME/RemoveENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:27, templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Project/PROJECTNAME.WorkerService/Program.cs:30, templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Project/PROJECTNAME.WorkerService/Program.cs:32, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.

Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.

What to do

  • Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 48 of 48 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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 structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

M4 · Documentation accuracy0.0 / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

  • CONTRIBUTING.md links to `ospo@avanade.com`, but `ospo@avanade.com` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — CONTRIBUTING.md:21
  • CONTRIBUTING.md names the project `Liquid.Fruit`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — CONTRIBUTING.md:279
  • CONTRIBUTING.md names the project `Liquid.Fruit.Tests`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — CONTRIBUTING.md:279
  • CONTRIBUTING.md names the project `Liquid.Fruit.AcceptanceTests`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — CONTRIBUTING.md:281
  • docs/Key-Concepts.md links to `DevOps-for-Microservices.md`, but `docs/DevOps-for-Microservices.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Key-Concepts.md:12
  • docs/Key-Concepts.md links to `API-as-formal-Object-Model.md`, but `docs/API-as-formal-Object-Model.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Key-Concepts.md:16
  • docs/Key-Concepts.md links to `Business-Error-Handling.md`, but `docs/Business-Error-Handling.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Key-Concepts.md:20
  • docs/Key-Concepts.md links to `Microservice-Sizing.md`, but `docs/Microservice-Sizing.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Key-Concepts.md:22
  • docs/Platform-Abstraction-Layer.md links to `Choose-platform-components.md`, but `docs/Choose-platform-components.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Platform-Abstraction-Layer.md:16
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Install-project-templates.md`, but `docs/Install-project-templates.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:13
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Choose-platform-components.md`, but `docs/Choose-platform-components.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:14
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Set-up-configurations-per-environment.md`, but `docs/Set-up-configurations-per-environment.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:15
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Configure-CI-CD-and-CT.md`, but `docs/Configure-CI-CD-and-CT.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:16
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Deploy-microservices.md`, but `docs/Deploy-microservices.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:17
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Define-the-APIs.md`, but `docs/Define-the-APIs.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:20
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Structure-internal-logic.md`, but `docs/Structure-internal-logic.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:21
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Validate-input-and-data.md`, but `docs/Validate-input-and-data.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:22
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Secure-the-APIs.md`, but `docs/Secure-the-APIs.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:23
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Persist-and-query-data.md`, but `docs/Persist-and-query-data.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:24
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Make-internal-calls.md`, but `docs/Make-internal-calls.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:25
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Call-other-microservices.md`, but `docs/Call-other-microservices.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:26
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Call-third-party-APIs.md`, but `docs/Call-third-party-APIs.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:27
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Calling-the-back-end.md`, but `docs/Calling-the-back-end.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:30
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Call-third-party-back-ends.md`, but `docs/Call-third-party-back-ends.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:31
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Add-authentication-to-the-front-end.md`, but `docs/Add-authentication-to-the-front-end.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:32
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Seeding-test-data.md`, but `docs/Seeding-test-data.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:35
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Test-APIs-directly.md`, but `docs/Test-APIs-directly.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:36
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Mock-authentication.md`, but `docs/Mock-authentication.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:37
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Mock-calls-to-microservices.md`, but `docs/Mock-calls-to-microservices.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:38
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Gather-telemetry.md`, but `docs/Gather-telemetry.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:41
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Control-state-of-changing-data.md`, but `docs/Control-state-of-changing-data.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:42
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Querying-data-with-pagination.md`, but `docs/Querying-data-with-pagination.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:43
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Building-complex-queries.md`, but `docs/Building-complex-queries.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:44
  • docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Deal-with-multiple-cultures.md`, but `docs/Deal-with-multiple-cultures.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:45

What to do

  • Reconcile the README with reality: CONTRIBUTING.md links to `ospo@avanade.com`, but `ospo@avanade.com` does not exist; CONTRIBUTING.md names the project `Liquid.Fruit`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; CONTRIBUTING.md names the project `Liquid.Fruit.Tests`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; CONTRIBUTING.md names the project `Liquid.Fruit.AcceptanceTests`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; docs/Key-Concepts.md links to `DevOps-for-Microservices.md`, but `docs/DevOps-for-Microservices.md` does not exist.
P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • 195/204 types (96%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.

What to do

  • Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.
P2 · Observability4.7 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: structured-logging frameworks (Serilog, NLog), OpenTelemetry, and health-check endpoint patterns. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • Only 7/31 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 31, 4 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

What to do

  • Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.

What to do

  • Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.

Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

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

What to do

  • Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.

Method: Source scan: outbound HTTP clients and what bounds them — resilience handlers (Polly, AddStandardResilienceHandler) on .NET; on Go, the JVM, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Elixir, Swift, Dart and Erlang, a timeout, deadline, retry or breaker beside each call, or a process-wide client default (a framework-wide deadline such as Drupal core's, Laravel's or actix's awc counts). Exhaustive, deterministic.

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

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

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

  • No benchmark suite was found by the two searches this check runs. FIRST, a BenchmarkDotNet package reference in any project file — every project the workspace loaded, plus a walk of project files on disk that never loaded, because a benchmark suite is exactly the project a partial load drops. SECOND, a script harness: a file whose name contains `benchmark` and ends `.py`, `.sh`, `.ps1`, `.bash`, `.rb`, `.js` or `.mjs`, credited ONLY when this repository's CI text also mentions benchmarks — a harness no pipeline runs is read as a fixture, deliberately. Neither search can see a benchmark suite in another ecosystem's idiom (a Go `testing.B` file, a JMH or criterion project, a pytest-benchmark run), so this is 'no benchmark found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

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

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

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

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

What to do

  • On hot paths, prefer Span<T>/ReadOnlySpan<T>, ArrayPool<T>, stackalloc and ValueTask to cut the allocations those paths would otherwise make.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene6.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

  • Only 3/110 awaits in library code use ConfigureAwait(false). A library that captures the caller's context can stall or deadlock its host — the classic way a dependency drags an app down.
  • `await MapImpl(dataObject, entityName)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Core/AbstractMappers/LiquidMapper.cs:33
  • `await MapImpl(dataObject)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Core/AbstractMappers/OcrResultMapper.cs:37
  • `await BeforeInvocation(invocation, proceedInfo)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. (×2) — src/Liquid.Core/Base/LiquidInterceptorBase.cs:29, src/Liquid.Core/Base/LiquidInterceptorBase.cs:54
  • `await OnExceptionInvocation(invocation, proceedInfo, ex)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. (×2) — src/Liquid.Core/Base/LiquidInterceptorBase.cs:34, src/Liquid.Core/Base/LiquidInterceptorBase.cs:59
  • `await AfterInvocation(invocation, proceedInfo, default(object))` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Core/Base/LiquidInterceptorBase.cs:39
  • `await _inner.ProcessMessageAsync(args, cancellationToken)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. (×3) — src/Liquid.Core/Decorators/LiquidContextDecorator.cs:56, src/Liquid.Core/Decorators/LiquidCultureDecorator.cs:51, src/Liquid.Core/Decorators/LiquidScopedLoggingDecorator.cs:58
  • `await Task.CompletedTask` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidBackgroundService.cs:44
  • `await worker.ProcessMessageAsync(args, cancellationToken)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidBackgroundService.cs:59
  • `await _distributedCache.GetAsync(key, token)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidCache.cs:83
  • `await _distributedCache.SetAsync(key, value.ToJsonBytes(), options, token)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidCache.cs:96
  • `await datacontext.StartTransactionAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidUnitOfWork.cs:65
  • `await datacontext.CommitAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidUnitOfWork.cs:80
  • `await datacontext.RollbackTransactionAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidUnitOfWork.cs:95
  • `await BeforeRequest(methodInfo)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. (×2) — src/Liquid.Core/PipelineBehaviors/LiquidTelemetryBehavior.cs:46, src/Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm/Implementations/LiquidElasticApmTelemetryBehavior.cs:49
  • `await next()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. (×3) — src/Liquid.Core/PipelineBehaviors/LiquidTelemetryBehavior.cs:47, src/Liquid.Core/PipelineBehaviors/LiquidValidationBehavior.cs:48, src/Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm/Implementations/LiquidElasticApmTelemetryBehavior.cs:50
  • `await OnExceptionResponse(methodInfo, ex)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. (×2) — src/Liquid.Core/PipelineBehaviors/LiquidTelemetryBehavior.cs:51, src/Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm/Implementations/LiquidElasticApmTelemetryBehavior.cs:54
  • `await AfterResponse(methodInfo)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. (×2) — src/Liquid.Core/PipelineBehaviors/LiquidTelemetryBehavior.cs:56, src/Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm/Implementations/LiquidElasticApmTelemetryBehavior.cs:59
  • `await Task.WhenAll(_validators.Select(v => v.ValidateAsync(context, cancellationTok...` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Core/PipelineBehaviors/LiquidValidationBehavior.cs:41
  • `await _databaseContext.Database.BeginTransactionAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkDataContext.cs:41
  • `await _databaseContext.Database.CommitTransactionAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkDataContext.cs:47
  • `await _databaseContext.Database.RollbackTransactionAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkDataContext.cs:53
  • `await _dbSet.AddAsync(entity)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs:55
  • `await _dbClient.SaveChangesAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. (×3) — src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs:56, src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs:83, src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs:91
  • `await _dbSet.FirstOrDefaultAsync(o => o.Id.Equals(id))` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs:78
  • `await collection.InsertOneAsync(document)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Extensions/IMongoCollectionExtensions.cs:24
  • `await collection.InsertOneAsync(session, document)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Extensions/IMongoCollectionExtensions.cs:28
  • `await collection.FindAsync(filter, options: null, cancellationToken: default)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Extensions/IMongoCollectionExtensions.cs:42
  • `await collection.FindAsync(session, filter)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Extensions/IMongoCollectionExtensions.cs:45

What to do

  • In library code, append .ConfigureAwait(false) to every await (or set <ConfigureAwait>false</ConfigureAwait> / use the analyzer CA2007) so the library never captures the host's context.
S1 · Web-Security Posture4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir source itself (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not) for the arms that hold whether or not the code serves HTTP: a weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source, a TLS client that accepts any certificate, and (JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Elixir) an obsolete TLS version; the server controls are not assessed there, and a Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir repository that serves no HTTP of its own is N/A on them. Deterministic.

  • `ServerCertificateCustomValidationCallback` is assigned a callback that returns `true` unconditionally, so every TLS peer certificate is accepted — including one an attacker presents. Chain, expiry, revocation and hostname are all skipped, so an attacker on the network path can present any certificate and read or rewrite the traffic — the connection is encrypted to the attacker, not to the intended host. Delete the override and let the platform validate. If a specific self-signed or internally-issued certificate genuinely has to be trusted, pin THAT one — compare the presented certificate's public key or thumbprint against the expected value and return `false` for everything else — and scope it to the single handler that talks to that host rather than to the whole process. If the override exists only to get past a development certificate, gate it on a build configuration or an explicit opt-in setting so it cannot ship. — src/Liquid.Repository.OData/ODataClientFactory.cs:67
  • None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves. — samples/src/Liquid.Sample.Api/Program.cs:7

What to do

  • Stop accepting every TLS certificate: remove the always-true validation callback so the platform verifies the chain, hostname and expiry. If one self-signed certificate must be trusted, pin it by public key or thumbprint on the single handler that needs it and reject all others — never process-wide.
  • Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy first, then Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options and a frame policy) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.

X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness4.6 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

  • `serviceBusClient` is a `ServiceBusClient`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 42). Every use of it in `GetProcessor` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var serviceBusClient = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusFactory.cs:42
  • `serviceBusClient` is a `ServiceBusClient`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 74). Every use of it in `GetSender` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var serviceBusClient = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusFactory.cs:74
  • `serviceBusClient` is a `ServiceBusClient`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 101). Every use of it in `GetReceiver` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var serviceBusClient = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusFactory.cs:101
  • `handler` is a `HttpClientHandler`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 63). Every use of it in `GetODataSettings` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var handler = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Liquid.Repository.OData/ODataClientFactory.cs:63

What to do

  • Each finding names the value and the span that decides who owns it — the `new` that created it, or the constructor parameter that handed it over. Confirm ownership from that span, then make the disposal match it: release what this type created, leave what it was injected with to whoever created THAT, and drop a finalizer whose type holds nothing unmanaged to release.
X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X2 · Cancellation propagation7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same question: every named async function that itself makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (global `fetch`, axios and its file-local instances, ky, ofetch) counts, and it is compliant when its parameters or body name a signal or it hands one of its own parameters to the request as options; signatures a framework fixes (JSX event handlers, route and lifecycle exports, request-first handlers, `override`, `'use server'` modules, TanStack `mutationFn`) are exempt unless they take a signal. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

  • Only 28/47 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×16) — src/Liquid.Core/AbstractMappers/LiquidMapper.cs:24, src/Liquid.Core/AbstractMappers/OcrResultMapper.cs:28, src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidUnitOfWork.cs:58, …
  • No CancellationToken parameter, and the token `message.CancellationToken` carries reaches none of the calls here that take one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Pass `message.CancellationToken` on, or take a CancellationToken. — src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusConsumer.cs:62
  • No CancellationToken parameter, and the token `context.RequestAborted` carries reaches none of the calls here that take one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Pass `context.RequestAborted` on, or take a CancellationToken. — src/Liquid.WebApi.Http/Middlewares/LiquidExceptionMiddleware.cs:64
  • No CancellationToken parameter, and the token `req.HttpContext.RequestAborted` carries reaches none of the calls here that take one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Pass `req.HttpContext.RequestAborted` on, or take a CancellationToken. — samples/src/Liquid.Sample.Dataverse.Function/DataverseIntegration.cs:24
  • 2 async method(s) await work their caller's cancellation cannot reach: a CancellationToken they hold (a parameter, or the one a framework-fixed signature carries) is never passed on, or the call is handed CancellationToken.None, default or an already-cancelled token. Forward the caller's token to that call.
  • Accepts a CancellationToken and never uses it, while it calls something that takes one — so a caller who cancels still waits for that work. Pass the token on (or, where the work must outlive the caller, start it without awaiting it so the choice is visible). (×2) — samples/src/Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer/Worker.cs:23, templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.WorkerService/Worker.cs:23

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X20 · Mistyped argument guard5.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

  • The guard on line 81 rejects `key` and line 81 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `string.IsNullOrEmpty(key)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `key`, and on that path `key` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — src/Liquid.Core/Localization/JsonFileLocalization.cs:81
  • The guard on line 59 rejects `settings` and line 61 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `settings.Count == 0` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `settings`, and on that path `settings` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — src/Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi/OpenAiClientFactory.cs:61

What to do

  • Each finding names the throw and the test in its own condition that is true of a NON-null value. Confirm from the two, then throw the exception that describes what was actually wrong: `ArgumentException` for a value that arrived empty, or the .NET 8 helpers that spell the whole guard in one line and pick the type for you — `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty(s)` / `ThrowIfNullOrWhiteSpace(s)` for strings, `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(x)` followed by `ArgumentOutOfRangeException.ThrowIfZero(x.Count)` for a collection. Splitting the two conditions is usually clearer than picking one exception for both: they are different failures and the caller may want to handle them differently.
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.

Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.

Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X4 · Structured logging5.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.

  • Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it. (×2) — src/Liquid.WebApi.Http/Middlewares/LiquidExceptionMiddleware.cs:54, src/Liquid.WebApi.Http/Middlewares/LiquidExceptionMiddleware.cs:59

What to do

  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging
X5 · Nullable reference types5.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • This method contradicts itself about `EfRepository`: line 31 assigns it with `as EntityFrameworkRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier,TContext>`, which hands back null rather than throwing when the value is not a `EntityFrameworkRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier,TContext>`, but line 33 then dereferences it directly as `EfRepository.WhereInclude` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `as` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for — and the NullReferenceException names neither the cast nor the type that failed. Settle it one way — test `EfRepository` once before the first use and handle the null case, or cast with `(EntityFrameworkRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier,TContext>)` so the failure is reported where it happens — rather than leaving the two readings side by side. — src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Extensions/ILiquidRepositoryExtensions.cs:33
  • This method contradicts itself about `EfRepository`: line 53 assigns it with `as EntityFrameworkRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier, TContext>`, which hands back null rather than throwing when the value is not a `EntityFrameworkRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier, TContext>`, but line 55 then dereferences it directly as `EfRepository.WhereInclude` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `as` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for — and the NullReferenceException names neither the cast nor the type that failed. Settle it one way — test `EfRepository` once before the first use and handle the null case, or cast with `(EntityFrameworkRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier, TContext>)` so the failure is reported where it happens — rather than leaving the two readings side by side. — src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Extensions/ILiquidRepositoryExtensions.cs:55
  • This method contradicts itself about `settings`: line 58 writes `settings?.Queue`, which says `settings` can be null, but line 34 then dereferences it directly as `settings.QueueSettings` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `?.` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for; if `settings` truly cannot be null here, the `?.` is misleading. Settle it one way — test `settings` once before the first use and handle the null case, or drop the `?.` — rather than leaving the two readings side by side. — src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqFactory.cs:34
  • This method contradicts itself about `settings`: line 85 writes `settings?.Exchange`, which says `settings` can be null, but line 72 then dereferences it directly as `settings.QueueSettings` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `?.` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for; if `settings` truly cannot be null here, the `?.` is misleading. Settle it one way — test `settings` once before the first use and handle the null case, or drop the `?.` — rather than leaving the two readings side by side. — src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqFactory.cs:72
  • 13/32 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

What to do

  • Where a method uses `?.` on a symbol and then dereferences it directly, settle the question once: test it before the first use and handle null, or drop the `?.`.
  • Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health48%Weak — gated by D18, D17Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture67%Adequate — gated by AX2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity37%Weak — gated by D34, M2, M4Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness61%AdequateStrongest area.
Security24%Critical — gated by D29, D36, C1, C2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance60%AdequateAcceptable, with room to improve.
Unscored — 3 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — 1 observation(s) recorded · Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X10 Duplicated predicate — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

  • C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
  • C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 36 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the service did not build — `dotnet build 'PROJECTNAME.WebApi.csproj'` exited 1: ; runtime evidence skipped (launch chosen because templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Project/PROJECTNAME.WebApi/PROJECTNAME.WebApi.csproj is a Microsoft.NET.Sdk.Web project) 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.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — small single-context codebase (11,660 production LoC in the .NET projects) — bounded contexts are not needed at this size 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"]`.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
  • 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 — IL not measured — the target did not build
  • D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer)
  • ED1 Handler temporal coupling — no events and no event/broker handlers detected — event-driven integration not assessable
  • ED2 Event/command shape — no events and no event/broker handlers detected — event-driven integration not assessable
  • ED3 Event naming — no events and no event/broker handlers detected — event-driven integration not assessable
  • ED4 Outbox / dual-write — no events and no event/broker handlers detected — event-driven integration not assessable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • P8 Schema migrations — EF Core is used, but the schema-migration mechanism could not be identified — this check only recognises EF migrations, so any other migration runner reads as an absence. Our limit, not a verdict on this repository.
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • 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)

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

Critical — 58 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D17 · Explicit Debt · WriteOnlyPrivateField · ×8
  • WriteOnlyPrivateField samples/src/Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer/Worker.cs:14 — private ILogger<Worker> _logger — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
  • WriteOnlyPrivateField templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Project/PROJECTNAME.WorkerService/Worker.cs:14 — private ILogger<Worker> _logger — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
  • WriteOnlyPrivateField templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.WorkerService/Worker.cs:14 — private ILogger<Worker> _logger — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
  • WriteOnlyPrivateField templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Domain.Project/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAME/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:12 — private ILiquidRepository<ENTITYNAME, ENTITYIDTYPE> _repository — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
  • WriteOnlyPrivateField templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAME/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:12 — private ILiquidRepository<ENTITYNAME, ENTITYIDTYPE> _repository — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
  • WriteOnlyPrivateField templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAME/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:12 — private ILiquidRepository<ENTITYNAME, ENTITYIDTYPE> _repository — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
  • WriteOnlyPrivateField test/Liquid.Dataverse.Tests/DataverseClientFactoryTests.cs:8 — private IDataverseClientFactory _sut — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
  • WriteOnlyPrivateField test/Liquid.WebApi.Http.Tests/Mocks/TestNotificationController.cs:17 — private ILiquidNotificationHelper _liquidNotification — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×8
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Liquid.Repository.Mongo.csproj:22 — 1701 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.csproj:17 — 1701 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Liquid.Repository.Mongo.csproj:22 — 1702 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.csproj:17 — 1702 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Liquid.Repository.Mongo.csproj:22 — 1584 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.csproj:17 — 1584 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Liquid.Repository.Mongo.csproj:22 — 1658 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.csproj:17 — 1658 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
AX1 · Captive dependencies · Captive dependency · ×5
  • Captive dependency: singleton ServiceBusProducer captures transient IServiceBusFactory src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusProducer.cs:21 — `ServiceBusProducer` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IServiceBusFactory factory`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IServiceBusFactory` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes.
  • Captive dependency: singleton ServiceBusConsumer captures transient IServiceBusFactory src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusConsumer.cs:34 — `ServiceBusConsumer` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IServiceBusFactory factory`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IServiceBusFactory` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes.
  • Captive dependency: singleton RabbitMqProducer captures transient IRabbitMqFactory src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqProducer.cs:27 — `RabbitMqProducer` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IRabbitMqFactory factory`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IRabbitMqFactory` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes.
  • Captive dependency: singleton RabbitMqConsumer captures transient IRabbitMqFactory src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqConsumer.cs:40 — `RabbitMqConsumer` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IRabbitMqFactory factory`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IRabbitMqFactory` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes.
  • Captive dependency: singleton LiquidDataverse captures transient IDataverseClientFactory src/Liquid.Dataverse/LiquidDataverse.cs:21 — `LiquidDataverse` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IDataverseClientFactory serviceFactory`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IDataverseClientFactory` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes.
D10 · Test Quality · Assertions commented out · ×4
  • Assertions commented out: AddElasticApmTelemetry_WhenEnvironement_Enabled test/Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm.Tests/IServiceCollectionExtensionsTests.cs:93 — The test body contains commented-out assertion calls and no live one — it runs, verifies nothing, and still passes. Restore the assertions or delete the test; a green test that checks nothing is worse than an absent one.
  • Assertions commented out: AddElasticApmTelemetry_WhenEnvironement_NotEnabled test/Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm.Tests/IServiceCollectionExtensionsTests.cs:114 — The test body contains commented-out assertion calls and no live one — it runs, verifies nothing, and still passes. Restore the assertions or delete the test; a green test that checks nothing is worse than an absent one.
  • Assertions commented out: AddLiquidNCacheDistributedCache_WhenWithTelemetryTrue_GetServicesReturnLiqudCache test/Liquid.Cache.NCache.Tests/IServiceCollectionExtensionTest.cs:23 — The test body contains commented-out assertion calls and no live one — it runs, verifies nothing, and still passes. Restore the assertions or delete the test; a green test that checks nothing is worse than an absent one.
  • Assertions commented out: AddLiquidNCacheDistributedCache_WhenWithTelemetryfalse_GetServicesReturnLiqudCache test/Liquid.Cache.NCache.Tests/IServiceCollectionExtensionTest.cs:42 — The test body contains commented-out assertion calls and no live one — it runs, verifies nothing, and still passes. Restore the assertions or delete the test; a green test that checks nothing is worse than an absent one.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D10 · Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing · ×1
  • Test project verifies nothing: Liquid.Cache.NCache.Tests test/Liquid.Cache.NCache.Tests/IServiceCollectionExtensionTest.cs:23 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 2 of 2 tests in `Liquid.Cache.NCache.Tests` — the project as a whole, not one method. 2 of them has its assertions commented out, so this suite did verify conventionally and was switched off — it is not an approval/verifier harness.
S1 · Web-Security Posture · TLS certificate validation disabled · ×1
  • TLS certificate validation disabled src/Liquid.Repository.OData/ODataClientFactory.cs:67 — `ServerCertificateCustomValidationCallback` is assigned a callback that returns `true` unconditionally, so every TLS peer certificate is accepted — including one an attacker presents. Chain, expiry, revocation and hostname are all skipped, so an attacker on the network path can present any certificate and read or rewrite the traffic — the connection is encrypted to the attacker, not to the intended host. Delete the override and let the platform validate. If a specific self-signed or internally-issued certificate genuinely has to be trusted, pin THAT one — compare the presented certificate's public key or thumbprint against the expected value and return `false` for everything else — and scope it to the single handler that talks to that host rather than to the whole process. If the override exists only to get past a development certificate, gate it on a build configuration or an explicit opt-in setting so it cannot ship.
Serious — 268 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · CoverageExclusion · ×104
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/AbstractMappers/LiquidMapper.cs:10 — class LiquidMapper — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/AbstractMappers/OcrResultMapper.cs:14 — class OcrResultMapper — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Base/Enumeration.cs:14 — class Enumeration — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Entities/ClientDictionary.cs:9 — class ClientDictionary — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Entities/FunctionBody.cs:10 — class FunctionBody — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Entities/LiquidBlob.cs:9 — class LiquidBlob — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Entities/LiquidEntity.cs:9 — class LiquidEntity — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Entities/OcrResult.cs:10 — class OcrResult — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Entities/OcrResult.cs:26 — class PageInfo — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Entities/OcrResult.cs:52 — class WordData — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Entities/OcrResult.cs:75 — class LineData — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/DataMappingException.cs:9 — class DataMappingException — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/DatabaseContextException.cs:10 — class DatabaseContextException — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/ExceptionCustomCodes.cs:10 — class ExceptionCustomCodes — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/LiquidCustomException.cs:12 — class LiquidCustomException — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/LiquidDatabaseSettingsDoesNotExistException.cs:11 — class LiquidDatabaseSettingsDoesNotExistException — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/LiquidException.cs:12 — class LiquidException — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/MessagingConsumerException.cs:12 — class MessagingConsumerException — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/MessagingMissingConfigurationException.cs:12 — class MessagingMissingConfigurationException — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/MessagingMissingContextKeysException.cs:8 — class MessagingMissingContextKeysException — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/MessagingMissingScopedKeysException.cs:8 — class MessagingMissingScopedKeysException — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/MessagingMissingSettingsException.cs:12 — class MessagingMissingSettingsException — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/MessagingProducerException.cs:12 — class MessagingProducerException — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/SerializerFailException.cs:12 — class SerializerFailException — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • CoverageExclusion src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/UnitOfWorkTransactionNotStartedException.cs:11 — class UnitOfWorkTransactionNotStartedException — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
  • + 79 more in this group — see findings.md.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene · Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) · ×40
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) — Only 3/110 awaits in library code use ConfigureAwait(false). A library that captures the caller's context can stall or deadlock its host — the classic way a dependency drags an app down.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/AbstractMappers/LiquidMapper.cs:33 — `await MapImpl(dataObject, entityName)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/AbstractMappers/OcrResultMapper.cs:37 — `await MapImpl(dataObject)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/Base/LiquidInterceptorBase.cs:29 — `await BeforeInvocation(invocation, proceedInfo)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/Base/LiquidInterceptorBase.cs:34 — `await OnExceptionInvocation(invocation, proceedInfo, ex)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/Base/LiquidInterceptorBase.cs:39 — `await AfterInvocation(invocation, proceedInfo, default(object))` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/Base/LiquidInterceptorBase.cs:54 — `await BeforeInvocation(invocation, proceedInfo)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/Base/LiquidInterceptorBase.cs:59 — `await OnExceptionInvocation(invocation, proceedInfo, ex)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/Decorators/LiquidContextDecorator.cs:56 — `await _inner.ProcessMessageAsync(args, cancellationToken)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/Decorators/LiquidCultureDecorator.cs:51 — `await _inner.ProcessMessageAsync(args, cancellationToken)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/Decorators/LiquidScopedLoggingDecorator.cs:58 — `await _inner.ProcessMessageAsync(args, cancellationToken)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidBackgroundService.cs:44 — `await Task.CompletedTask` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidBackgroundService.cs:59 — `await worker.ProcessMessageAsync(args, cancellationToken)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidCache.cs:83 — `await _distributedCache.GetAsync(key, token)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidCache.cs:96 — `await _distributedCache.SetAsync(key, value.ToJsonBytes(), options, token)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidUnitOfWork.cs:65 — `await datacontext.StartTransactionAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidUnitOfWork.cs:80 — `await datacontext.CommitAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidUnitOfWork.cs:95 — `await datacontext.RollbackTransactionAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/PipelineBehaviors/LiquidTelemetryBehavior.cs:46 — `await BeforeRequest(methodInfo)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/PipelineBehaviors/LiquidTelemetryBehavior.cs:47 — `await next()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/PipelineBehaviors/LiquidTelemetryBehavior.cs:51 — `await OnExceptionResponse(methodInfo, ex)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/PipelineBehaviors/LiquidTelemetryBehavior.cs:56 — `await AfterResponse(methodInfo)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/PipelineBehaviors/LiquidValidationBehavior.cs:41 — `await Task.WhenAll(_validators.Select(v => v.ValidateAsync(context, cancellationTok...` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core/PipelineBehaviors/LiquidValidationBehavior.cs:48 — `await next()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm/Implementations/LiquidElasticApmTelemetryBehavior.cs:49 — `await BeforeRequest(methodInfo)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • + 15 more in this group — see findings.md.
X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken · ×19
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Map src/Liquid.Core/AbstractMappers/LiquidMapper.cs:24 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Map src/Liquid.Core/AbstractMappers/OcrResultMapper.cs:28 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: StartTransactionAsync src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidUnitOfWork.cs:58 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: CommitAsync src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidUnitOfWork.cs:75 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: RollbackTransactionAsync src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidUnitOfWork.cs:90 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: InsertOneAsync src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Extensions/IMongoCollectionExtensions.cs:20 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: FindAsync src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Extensions/IMongoCollectionExtensions.cs:38 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: FindAsync src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Extensions/IMongoCollectionExtensions.cs:54 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: DeleteOneAsync src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Extensions/IMongoCollectionExtensions.cs:70 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: ReplaceOneAsync src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Extensions/IMongoCollectionExtensions.cs:88 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: MessageHandler src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusConsumer.cs:62 — No CancellationToken parameter, and the token `message.CancellationToken` carries reaches none of the calls here that take one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Pass `message.CancellationToken` on, or take a CancellationToken.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync src/Liquid.WebApi.Http/Implementations/LiquidControllerBase.cs:39 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync src/Liquid.WebApi.Http/Implementations/LiquidControllerBase.cs:50 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: HandleExceptionAsync src/Liquid.WebApi.Http/Middlewares/LiquidExceptionMiddleware.cs:64 — No CancellationToken parameter, and the token `context.RequestAborted` carries reaches none of the calls here that take one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Pass `context.RequestAborted` on, or take a CancellationToken.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetEntityAttributes src/Liquid.Dataverse/DataverseEntityMapper.cs:45 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Post REDACTED:46 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Post REDACTED:22 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Run samples/src/Liquid.Sample.Dataverse.Function/DataverseIntegration.cs:24 — No CancellationToken parameter, and the token `req.HttpContext.RequestAborted` carries reaches none of the calls here that take one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Pass `req.HttpContext.RequestAborted` on, or take a CancellationToken.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: COMMANDNAME REDACTED:22 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED · ×17
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×12
  • TodoComment templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Crud.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Entities/ENTITYNAME.cs:8 — //TODO: declare entity properties. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Domain.Project/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Entities/ENTITYNAME.cs:8 — //TODO: declare entity properties. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Entities/ENTITYNAME.cs:8 — //TODO: declare entity properties. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Entities/ENTITYNAME.cs:8 — //TODO: declare entity properties. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Crud.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.WebApi/Program.cs:14 — //TODO: Register and configure repository Liquid Cartridge — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Project/PROJECTNAME.WebApi/Program.cs:14 — //TODO: Register and configure repository Liquid Cartridge — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.WebApi/Program.cs:14 — //TODO: Register and configure repository Liquid Cartridge — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Domain.Project/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAME/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:22 — //TODO: implement handler operation. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAME/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:22 — //TODO: implement handler operation. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAME/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:22 — //TODO: implement handler operation. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Project/PROJECTNAME.WorkerService/Program.cs:20 — //TODO: Register and configure messaging consumer and repository Liquid Cartridge — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.WorkerService/Program.cs:20 — //TODO: Register and configure messaging consumer and repository Liquid Cartridge — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×9
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
AX2 · Stateful singletons · Stateful singleton · ×7
  • Stateful singleton: ServiceBusConsumer src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusConsumer.cs:15 — `ServiceBusConsumer` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_messageProcessor; e.g. `_messageProcessor` at line 48).
  • Stateful singleton: KafkaConsumer src/Liquid.Messaging.Kafka/KafkaConsumer.cs:16 — `KafkaConsumer` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_client; e.g. `_client` at line 51).
  • Stateful singleton: RabbitMqFactory src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqFactory.cs:10 — `RabbitMqFactory` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_connection, _model; e.g. `_connection` at line 39).
  • Stateful singleton: RabbitMqConsumer src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqConsumer.cs:21 — `RabbitMqConsumer` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_channelModel; e.g. `_channelModel` at line 61).
  • Stateful singleton: BlobClientFactory src/Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage/BlobClientFactory.cs:7 — `BlobClientFactory` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_clients; e.g. `_clients` at line 35).
  • Stateful singleton: DataverseEntityMapper src/Liquid.Dataverse/DataverseEntityMapper.cs:14 — `DataverseEntityMapper` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_entitiesMetadata; e.g. `_entitiesMetadata` at line 52).
  • Stateful singleton: OpenAiClientFactory src/Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi/OpenAiClientFactory.cs:13 — `OpenAiClientFactory` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_openAiClients; e.g. `_openAiClients` at line 76).
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Fake-async · ×6
  • Fake-async — async method never awaits src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs:60 — `FindAllAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work.
  • Fake-async — async method never awaits src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs:68 — `FindByIdAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work.
  • Fake-async — async method never awaits src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs:95 — `WhereAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work.
  • Fake-async — async method never awaits templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Domain.Project/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAME/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:20 — `Handle` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work.
  • Fake-async — async method never awaits templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WebApi.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAME/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:20 — `Handle` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work.
  • Fake-async — async method never awaits templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAME/COMMANDNAMEENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:20 — `Handle` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×5
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness · Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it · ×4
  • Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusFactory.cs:42 — `serviceBusClient` is a `ServiceBusClient`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 42). Every use of it in `GetProcessor` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var serviceBusClient = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
  • Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusFactory.cs:74 — `serviceBusClient` is a `ServiceBusClient`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 74). Every use of it in `GetSender` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var serviceBusClient = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
  • Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusFactory.cs:101 — `serviceBusClient` is a `ServiceBusClient`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 101). Every use of it in `GetReceiver` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var serviceBusClient = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
  • Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Liquid.Repository.OData/ODataClientFactory.cs:63 — `handler` is a `HttpClientHandler`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 63). Every use of it in `GetODataSettings` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var handler = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
X5 · Nullable reference types · Symbol treated as nullable, then dereferenced unguarded · ×4
  • Symbol treated as nullable, then dereferenced unguarded src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Extensions/ILiquidRepositoryExtensions.cs:33 — This method contradicts itself about `EfRepository`: line 31 assigns it with `as EntityFrameworkRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier,TContext>`, which hands back null rather than throwing when the value is not a `EntityFrameworkRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier,TContext>`, but line 33 then dereferences it directly as `EfRepository.WhereInclude` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `as` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for — and the NullReferenceException names neither the cast nor the type that failed. Settle it one way — test `EfRepository` once before the first use and handle the null case, or cast with `(EntityFrameworkRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier,TContext>)` so the failure is reported where it happens — rather than leaving the two readings side by side.
  • Symbol treated as nullable, then dereferenced unguarded src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Extensions/ILiquidRepositoryExtensions.cs:55 — This method contradicts itself about `EfRepository`: line 53 assigns it with `as EntityFrameworkRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier, TContext>`, which hands back null rather than throwing when the value is not a `EntityFrameworkRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier, TContext>`, but line 55 then dereferences it directly as `EfRepository.WhereInclude` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `as` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for — and the NullReferenceException names neither the cast nor the type that failed. Settle it one way — test `EfRepository` once before the first use and handle the null case, or cast with `(EntityFrameworkRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier, TContext>)` so the failure is reported where it happens — rather than leaving the two readings side by side.
  • Symbol treated as nullable, then dereferenced unguarded src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqFactory.cs:34 — This method contradicts itself about `settings`: line 58 writes `settings?.Queue`, which says `settings` can be null, but line 34 then dereferences it directly as `settings.QueueSettings` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `?.` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for; if `settings` truly cannot be null here, the `?.` is misleading. Settle it one way — test `settings` once before the first use and handle the null case, or drop the `?.` — rather than leaving the two readings side by side.
  • Symbol treated as nullable, then dereferenced unguarded src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqFactory.cs:72 — This method contradicts itself about `settings`: line 85 writes `settings?.Exchange`, which says `settings` can be null, but line 72 then dereferences it directly as `settings.QueueSettings` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `?.` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for; if `settings` truly cannot be null here, the `?.` is misleading. Settle it one way — test `settings` once before the first use and handle the null case, or drop the `?.` — rather than leaving the two readings side by side.
C2 · Access Controls · No authorization · ×3
  • No authorization — No [Authorize]/policies and no imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) were found — endpoints may be unprotected.
  • No authorization REDACTED:19 — `SampleController.Get` serves requests and nothing authorizes it: no [Authorize] or RequireAuthorization on it or its controller/group, no fallback policy, no auth-gate middleware and no imperative guard in this codebase.
  • No authorization REDACTED:22 — `SampleController.Post` serves requests and nothing authorizes it: no [Authorize] or RequireAuthorization on it or its controller/group, no fallback policy, no auth-gate middleware and no imperative guard in this codebase.
D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×3
  • CommentedOutCode test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Core/LocalizationTest.cs:5 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Core/LocalizationTest.cs:19 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Core/LocalizationTest.cs:53 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×2
  • Dead code: LocalizationTest test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Core/LocalizationTest.cs:3 — NamedType LocalizationTest — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Liquid.Core.Tests, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: MockNoAttributeSettings test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Mocks/MockSettings.cs:11 — NamedType MockNoAttributeSettings — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Liquid.Core.Tests, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
ED5 · Idempotency · Non-idempotent mutation · ×2
  • Non-idempotent mutation: Handlers.CreateENTITYNAMEHandler.Handle templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Crud.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/CreateENTITYNAME/CreateENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:19 — `Handlers.CreateENTITYNAMEHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write.
  • Non-idempotent mutation: Handlers.SampleEventCommandHandler.Handle samples/src/Liquid.Sample.Domain/Handlers/SamplePost/SampleEventCommandHandler.cs:28 — `Handlers.SampleEventCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write.
X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async method drops its CancellationToken · ×2
  • Async method drops its CancellationToken: ProcessMessageAsync samples/src/Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer/Worker.cs:23 — Accepts a CancellationToken and never uses it, while it calls something that takes one — so a caller who cancels still waits for that work. Pass the token on (or, where the work must outlive the caller, start it without awaiting it so the choice is visible).
  • Async method drops its CancellationToken: ProcessMessageAsync templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.WorkerService/Worker.cs:23 — Accepts a CancellationToken and never uses it, while it calls something that takes one — so a caller who cancels still waits for that work. Pass the token on (or, where the work must outlive the caller, start it without awaiting it so the choice is visible).
X20 · Mistyped argument guard · Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves · ×2
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves src/Liquid.Core/Localization/JsonFileLocalization.cs:81 — The guard on line 81 rejects `key` and line 81 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `string.IsNullOrEmpty(key)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `key`, and on that path `key` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves src/Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi/OpenAiClientFactory.cs:61 — The guard on line 59 rejects `settings` and line 61 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `settings.Count == 0` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `settings`, and on that path `settings` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
C1 · Data Protection · No data-protection/encryption · ×1
  • No data-protection/encryption — No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · DataverseEntityMapper.JsonToEntity (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • DataverseEntityMapper.JsonToEntity (cyclomatic 20) src/Liquid.Dataverse/DataverseEntityMapper.cs:73 — DataverseEntityMapper.JsonToEntity has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×1
  • No assertions: MessageHandler_WhenProcessExecutedSucessfully test/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq.Tests/RabbitMqConsumerTest.cs:91 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable · ×1
  • BarePragmaDisable test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Domain/RequestHandlerTest.cs:40 — #pragma warning disable CS0618 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
D18 · Solution Shape · Build failed · ×1
  • Build failed — The target solution did not build cleanly (errors: 21), which caps Solution Shape at 3/10 — the most basic shape signal is that it compiles. First errors: CS0246: The type or namespace name 'ENTITYIDTYPE' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?).
D18 · Solution Shape · Solution references 4 projects that do not exist · ×1
  • Solution references 4 projects that do not exist Liquid.Adapters.sln — `Liquid.Adapters.sln` declares 4 project file(s) that are missing from the tree (`src/Liquid.Adapter.AzureStorage/Liquid.Adapter.AzureStorage.csproj`, `src/Liquid.Adapter.Dataverse/Liquid.Adapter.Dataverse.csproj`, `test/Liquid.Adapter.AzureStorage.Tests/Liquid.Adapter.AzureStorage.Tests.csproj`, `test/Liquid.Adapter.Dataverse.Tests/Liquid.Adapter.Dataverse.Tests.csproj`). A solution-level restore or build fails on a dangling reference, so anyone building the solution rather than an individual project is blocked. Delete the stale entry from the solution, or restore the missing project file.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DataverseEntityMapper.JsonToEntity (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • DataverseEntityMapper.JsonToEntity (cognitive 17) src/Liquid.Dataverse/DataverseEntityMapper.cs:73 — DataverseEntityMapper.JsonToEntity has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent query method naming and intent. 'FindByIdAsync' is specific, 'FindAllAsync' is specific, but 'WhereAsync' is generic. Standard EF/Core conventions usually prefer 'GetByIdAsync' or 'FindAsync' for single entities and 'Where' for filtering, but mixing 'Find' and 'Where' without a clear pattern (e.g., 'Find' for simple lookups, 'Where' for complex queries) is confusing. More critically, 'FindAllAsync' is often considered an anti-pattern in repositories (returning all entities), whereas 'WhereAsync' with no predicate is the standard way to achieve this. Having both 'FindAllAsync' and 'WhereAsync' (which can do the same thing) creates redundancy. · ×1
  • Inconsistent query method naming and intent. 'FindByIdAsync' is specific, 'FindAllAsync' is specific, but 'WhereAsync' is generic. Standard EF/Core conventions usually prefer 'GetByIdAsync' or 'FindAsync' for single entities and 'Where' for filtering, but mixing 'Find' and 'Where' without a clear pattern (e.g., 'Find' for simple lookups, 'Where' for complex queries) is confusing. More critically, 'FindAllAsync' is often considered an anti-pattern in repositories (returning all entities), whereas 'WhereAsync' with no predicate is the standard way to achieve this. Having both 'FindAllAsync' and 'WhereAsync' (which can do the same thing) creates redundancy. — Remove 'FindAllAsync'. Use 'WhereAsync' for all filtering, including retrieving all entities (by passing a predicate that always returns true, or an overload without parameters). Rename 'FindByIdAsync' to 'GetByIdAsync' to align with common ASP.NET Core Data Access patterns, or keep 'FindByIdAsync' but ensure 'WhereAsync' is the primary query mechanism. (signatures: ILiquidRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier>.FindByIdAsync(TIdentifier id) | ILiquidRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier>.WhereAsync(Expression<Func<TEntity, bool>> whereClause) | ILiquidRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier>.FindAllAsync())
D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent naming convention for retrieval operations. 'ReadBlobsByName', 'ReadBlobsByTags', and 'GetAllBlobs' mix 'Read' and 'Get' verbs and pluralize 'Blobs' inconsistently with the singular 'blobName' parameter. 'GetAllBlobs' implies a collection, while 'ReadBlobsByName' implies a collection but likely returns a single item (or a list with one item). The verb 'Read' is used for specific lookups, while 'Get' is used for bulk retrieval. · ×1
  • Inconsistent naming convention for retrieval operations. 'ReadBlobsByName', 'ReadBlobsByTags', and 'GetAllBlobs' mix 'Read' and 'Get' verbs and pluralize 'Blobs' inconsistently with the singular 'blobName' parameter. 'GetAllBlobs' implies a collection, while 'ReadBlobsByName' implies a collection but likely returns a single item (or a list with one item). The verb 'Read' is used for specific lookups, while 'Get' is used for bulk retrieval. — Standardize on 'Get' for all retrieval operations. Rename 'ReadBlobsByName' to 'GetBlobByName' (singular if it returns one, or 'GetBlobsByName' if it returns a list). Rename 'ReadBlobsByTags' to 'GetBlobsByTags'. Rename 'GetAllBlobs' to 'GetAllBlobs' (consistent) or 'GetBlobs'. (signatures: ILiquidStorage.ReadBlobsByName(string blobName, string containerName) | ILiquidStorage.ReadBlobsByTags(IDictionary<string, string> tags, string containerName) | ILiquidStorage.GetAllBlobs(string containerName))
D22 · Internal API Consistency · Typo in method names · ×1
  • Typo in method names: 'ClassifyDocumenAsync' and 'ClassifyDocumenFromUriAsync' are missing the final 't' in 'Document'. This is a clear inconsistency with 'AnalyzeDocumentAsync' and 'AnalyzeDocumentFromUriAsync'. — Rename 'ClassifyDocumenAsync' to 'ClassifyDocumentAsync' and 'ClassifyDocumenFromUriAsync' to 'ClassifyDocumentFromUriAsync'. (signatures: ILiquidRecognition.AnalyzeDocumentAsync(Stream doc, ...) | ILiquidRecognition.AnalyzeDocumentFromUriAsync(string uri, ...) | ILiquidRecognition.ClassifyDocumenAsync(Stream doc, ...) | ILiquidRecognition.ClassifyDocumenFromUriAsync(string uri, ...))
D22 · Internal API Consistency · While the interface and implementation are consistent, the naming 'Get' for a context dictionary lookup is ambiguous compared to 'GetValue' or 'TryGetValue'. However, the more significant issue is the lack of a 'TryGet' pattern, which is standard for dictionary-like access to avoid exceptions. This is a design inconsistency with best practices rather than an internal API inconsistency, but it affects consistency with standard .NET patterns. · ×1
  • While the interface and implementation are consistent, the naming 'Get' for a context dictionary lookup is ambiguous compared to 'GetValue' or 'TryGetValue'. However, the more significant issue is the lack of a 'TryGet' pattern, which is standard for dictionary-like access to avoid exceptions. This is a design inconsistency with best practices rather than an internal API inconsistency, but it affects consistency with standard .NET patterns. — Add 'TryGet' methods to ILiquidContext to align with standard .NET dictionary patterns (IDictionary.TryGetValue). (signatures: ILiquidContext.Get(string key) | ILiquidContext.Get<T>(string key) | LiquidContext.Get(string key) | LiquidContext.Get<T>(string key))
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1
  • Change coupling: MongoClientFactory.cs ↔ MongoDataContext.cs src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/MongoClientFactory.cs:1 — `src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/MongoClientFactory.cs` and `src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/MongoDataContext.cs` change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `241fe316` fix: cleanup unused references.; `00ba3298` wip(Liquid.Repository.Mongo, Liquid.WebApi.Http): Update Liquid frame…; `2138b1f6` Refactoring para usar o DatabaseSettings como um IConfiguration e par… — run `git show` on any of them.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage/LiquidStorageAzure.cs:30 — src/Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage/LiquidStorageAzure.cs:30-41 | src/Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage/LiquidStorageAzure.cs:89-99 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage/LiquidStorageAzure.cs:30` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtension.cs:32 — src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtension.cs:32-39 | src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtension.cs:72-79 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtension.cs:32` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Liquid.Messaging.Kafka/KafkaProducer.cs:43 — src/Liquid.Messaging.Kafka/KafkaProducer.cs:43-54 | src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqProducer.cs:66-77 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life · End-of-life runtime · ×1
  • End-of-life runtime: .NET net6.0 samples/src/Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer/Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer.csproj:4 — samples/src/Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer/Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer.csproj declares .NET net6.0 as this project's target framework, and .NET 6 LTS, support ended 2024-11-12. An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2024-11-12 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — test suite did not build — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code · Unfinished stub · ×1
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Liquid.Repository.OData/ODataRepository.cs:11 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Unfinished stub · ×1
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Liquid.Repository.OData/ODataRepository.cs:11 — `DataContext` is a shipped property whose accessors only throw NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
P12 · CI test-gate honesty · Coverage collected but not gated · ×1
  • Coverage collected but not gated — CI collects a coverage report but no step enforces a minimum — coverage could halve and CI stays green. Add a step that fails the build when coverage drops below a floor (your coverage tool's minimum-threshold flag, or a coverage-gate action) so the number guards something. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: this repository's CI files AND its coverage configuration — the well-known coverage and test-runner config files, read at the repository root and inside workspace package directories two levels down, so a floor declared beside the tests rather than in the pipeline is credited — matched against the threshold settings this check knows by name. A floor set in your coverage service's web UI rather than in a committed file, or under a setting whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene · NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1
  • NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.
Minor — 126 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×63
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/ObjectExtension.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionAutoMapperExtensions.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file REDACTED:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionTypeExtensions.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionCoreExtensions.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi/OpenAiAdapter.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionExtensions.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtension.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage/LiquidStorageAzure.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Dataverse/LiquidDataverse.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Dataverse/DataverseEntityMapper.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Core/Base/Enumeration.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DateTimeExtension.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionExtension.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Messaging.Kafka/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionExtension.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Core/Utils/ZipUtils.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Core/Localization/JsonFileLocalization.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.WebApi.Http/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionExtensions.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/IEnumerableExtension.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqConsumer.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Core/Implementations/LiquidUnitOfWork.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Extensions/IMongoCollectionExtensions.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Liquid.Dataverse/ILiquidDataverse.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • + 38 more in this group — see findings.md.
M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×34
  • README/code drift CONTRIBUTING.md:21 — CONTRIBUTING.md links to `ospo@avanade.com`, but `ospo@avanade.com` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift CONTRIBUTING.md:279 — CONTRIBUTING.md names the project `Liquid.Fruit`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift CONTRIBUTING.md:279 — CONTRIBUTING.md names the project `Liquid.Fruit.Tests`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift CONTRIBUTING.md:281 — CONTRIBUTING.md names the project `Liquid.Fruit.AcceptanceTests`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Key-Concepts.md:12 — docs/Key-Concepts.md links to `DevOps-for-Microservices.md`, but `docs/DevOps-for-Microservices.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Key-Concepts.md:16 — docs/Key-Concepts.md links to `API-as-formal-Object-Model.md`, but `docs/API-as-formal-Object-Model.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Key-Concepts.md:20 — docs/Key-Concepts.md links to `Business-Error-Handling.md`, but `docs/Business-Error-Handling.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Key-Concepts.md:22 — docs/Key-Concepts.md links to `Microservice-Sizing.md`, but `docs/Microservice-Sizing.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Platform-Abstraction-Layer.md:16 — docs/Platform-Abstraction-Layer.md links to `Choose-platform-components.md`, but `docs/Choose-platform-components.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:13 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Install-project-templates.md`, but `docs/Install-project-templates.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:14 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Choose-platform-components.md`, but `docs/Choose-platform-components.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:15 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Set-up-configurations-per-environment.md`, but `docs/Set-up-configurations-per-environment.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:16 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Configure-CI-CD-and-CT.md`, but `docs/Configure-CI-CD-and-CT.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:17 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Deploy-microservices.md`, but `docs/Deploy-microservices.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:20 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Define-the-APIs.md`, but `docs/Define-the-APIs.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:21 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Structure-internal-logic.md`, but `docs/Structure-internal-logic.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:22 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Validate-input-and-data.md`, but `docs/Validate-input-and-data.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:23 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Secure-the-APIs.md`, but `docs/Secure-the-APIs.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:24 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Persist-and-query-data.md`, but `docs/Persist-and-query-data.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:25 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Make-internal-calls.md`, but `docs/Make-internal-calls.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:26 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Call-other-microservices.md`, but `docs/Call-other-microservices.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:27 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Call-third-party-APIs.md`, but `docs/Call-third-party-APIs.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:30 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Calling-the-back-end.md`, but `docs/Calling-the-back-end.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:31 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Call-third-party-back-ends.md`, but `docs/Call-third-party-back-ends.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md:32 — docs/Using-Liquid-for-building-your-application.md links to `Add-authentication-to-the-front-end.md`, but `docs/Add-authentication-to-the-front-end.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • + 9 more in this group — see findings.md.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Commented-out code · ×5
  • Commented-out code templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Crud.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Domain/Handlers/RemoveENTITYNAME/RemoveENTITYNAMEHandler.cs:27 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Project/PROJECTNAME.WorkerService/Program.cs:30 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Project/PROJECTNAME.WorkerService/Program.cs:32 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.WorkerService/Program.cs:30 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.WorkerService.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.WorkerService/Program.cs:32 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
S1 · Web-Security Posture · No security response headers detected · ×2
  • No security response headers detected — None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No security response headers detected samples/src/Liquid.Sample.Api/Program.cs:7 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
X4 · Structured logging · Interpolated log message defeats structured logging · ×2
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/Liquid.WebApi.Http/Middlewares/LiquidExceptionMiddleware.cs:54 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/Liquid.WebApi.Http/Middlewares/LiquidExceptionMiddleware.cs:59 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 1 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi/OpenAiAdapter.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithoutCallers · ×1
  • ObsoleteWithoutCallers test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Core/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtensionTest.cs:17 — [Obsolete] AddLiquidTelemetryInterceptor_WhenSuccessfullyInjectsInterceptor_GetServiceSuccessfully
D18 · Solution Shape · Thin analysable surface across projects · ×1
  • Thin analysable surface across projects: PROJECTNAME.Repository templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.DbContext.Project/PROJECTNAME.Repository/PROJECTNAME.Repository.csproj — 1 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code; `PROJECTNAME.Repository` has 28 significant line(s). The mean analysable-surface weight is 96 %; this project lowers Solution Shape by about 0.29 point(s). Consolidate it or grow it into a substantial, well-scoped assembly.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent spelling of the word 'Notification' in test method names. One uses 'Notificaton' (missing 'i') and the other uses 'Contexthas' (missing space/capitalization) and 'Notifications'. Specifically, 'InsertNotificaton' is a typo compared to the correct 'Notifications' used elsewhere. · ×1
  • Inconsistent spelling of the word 'Notification' in test method names. One uses 'Notificaton' (missing 'i') and the other uses 'Contexthas' (missing space/capitalization) and 'Notifications'. Specifically, 'InsertNotificaton' is a typo compared to the correct 'Notifications' used elsewhere. — Correct 'InsertNotificaton' to 'InsertNotification' and 'Contexthas' to 'ContextHas' for consistency and correctness. (symbols: Method: [Fact] public void Liquid.Core.Tests.Core.LiquidContextNotificationsTest.InsertNotificaton_WhenContextHasNoNotifications_Inserted(), Method: [Fact] public void Liquid.Core.Tests.Core.LiquidContextNotificationsTest.GetNotifications_WhenContexthasNotifications_ReturnNotifications())
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 63 of 63 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 63 separate risks. Counted over 63 of the 237 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1
  • No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
P10 · Library API & versioning · Large public API surface · ×1
  • Large public API surface — 195/204 types (96%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.
P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1
  • Logging is not universal — Only 7/31 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 31, 4 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No release approval gate · ×1
  • No release approval gate — The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.
P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1
  • No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
PF1 · Benchmark discipline · No performance benchmarks · ×1
  • No performance benchmarks — No benchmark suite was found by the two searches this check runs. FIRST, a BenchmarkDotNet package reference in any project file — every project the workspace loaded, plus a walk of project files on disk that never loaded, because a benchmark suite is exactly the project a partial load drops. SECOND, a script harness: a file whose name contains `benchmark` and ends `.py`, `.sh`, `.ps1`, `.bash`, `.rb`, `.js` or `.mjs`, credited ONLY when this repository's CI text also mentions benchmarks — a harness no pipeline runs is read as a fixture, deliberately. Neither search can see a benchmark suite in another ecosystem's idiom (a Go `testing.B` file, a JMH or criterion project, a pytest-benchmark run), so this is 'no benchmark found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.
PF2 · Allocation hygiene · No allocation-aware APIs detected · ×1
  • No allocation-aware APIs detected — No Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask or buffer-writer usage was found. If this code sits on a hot path, these reduce the GC pressure it creates — a bonus, not a requirement.
X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×1
  • Duplicated predicate src/Liquid.WebApi.Http/Middlewares/LiquidContextMiddleware.cs:55 — `string.IsNullOrEmpty(value) && key.Required` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Liquid.WebApi.Http/Middlewares/LiquidContextMiddleware.cs, src/Liquid.WebApi.Http/Middlewares/LiquidScopedLoggingMiddleware.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
X2 · Cancellation propagation · Not all async methods take a CancellationToken · ×1
  • Not all async methods take a CancellationToken — Only 28/47 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
X2 · Cancellation propagation · Some async methods drop the CancellationToken they accept · ×1
  • Some async methods drop the CancellationToken they accept — 2 async method(s) await work their caller's cancellation cannot reach: a CancellationToken they hold (a parameter, or the one a framework-fixed signature carries) is never passed on, or the call is handed CancellationToken.None, default or an already-cancelled token. Forward the caller's token to that call.
X5 · Nullable reference types · Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere · ×1
  • Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere — 13/32 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
Minor — 37 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×21
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Core src/Liquid.Core/Liquid.Core.csproj — Liquid.Core: 100 % XML-doc coverage (405/406).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm src/Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm/Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm.csproj — Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm: 100 % XML-doc coverage (9/9).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Cache.Memory src/Liquid.Cache.Memory/Liquid.Cache.Memory.csproj — Liquid.Cache.Memory: 100 % XML-doc coverage (2/2).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Cache.NCache src/Liquid.Cache.NCache/Liquid.Cache.NCache.csproj — Liquid.Cache.NCache: 100 % XML-doc coverage (2/2).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Cache.Redis src/Liquid.Cache.Redis/Liquid.Cache.Redis.csproj — Liquid.Cache.Redis: 100 % XML-doc coverage (2/2).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Cache.SqlServer src/Liquid.Cache.SqlServer/Liquid.Cache.SqlServer.csproj — Liquid.Cache.SqlServer: 100 % XML-doc coverage (2/2).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.csproj — Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework: 100 % XML-doc coverage (32/32).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Repository.Mongo src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Liquid.Repository.Mongo.csproj — Liquid.Repository.Mongo: 100 % XML-doc coverage (50/50).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus.csproj — Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus: 100 % XML-doc coverage (27/27).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Messaging.Kafka src/Liquid.Messaging.Kafka/Liquid.Messaging.Kafka.csproj — Liquid.Messaging.Kafka: 100 % XML-doc coverage (28/28).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq src/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq/Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq.csproj — Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq: 100 % XML-doc coverage (53/53).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.WebApi.Http src/Liquid.WebApi.Http/Liquid.WebApi.Http.csproj — Liquid.WebApi.Http: 100 % XML-doc coverage (69/69).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage src/Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage/Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage.csproj — Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage: 100 % XML-doc coverage (22/22).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Dataverse src/Liquid.Dataverse/Liquid.Dataverse.csproj — Liquid.Dataverse: 96 % XML-doc coverage (25/26).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi src/Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi/Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi.csproj — Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi: 100 % XML-doc coverage (19/19).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Repository.OData src/Liquid.Repository.OData/Liquid.Repository.OData.csproj — Liquid.Repository.OData: 100 % XML-doc coverage (21/21).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer samples/src/Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer/Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer.csproj — Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/6).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Sample.Domain samples/src/Liquid.Sample.Domain/Liquid.Sample.Domain.csproj — Liquid.Sample.Domain: 3 % XML-doc coverage (1/32).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Sample.Api samples/src/Liquid.Sample.Api/Liquid.Sample.Api.csproj — Liquid.Sample.Api: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/4).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Sample.Dataverse.Function samples/src/Liquid.Sample.Dataverse.Function/Liquid.Sample.Dataverse.Function.csproj — Liquid.Sample.Dataverse.Function: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/6).
  • XML-doc coverage: Liquid.Sample.Dataverse.Domain samples/src/Liquid.Sample.Dataverse.Domain/Liquid.Sample.Dataverse.Domain.csproj — Liquid.Sample.Dataverse.Domain: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/3).
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×16
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.Core.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.Core.Telemetry.ElasticApm.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.Cache.Memory.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.Cache.NCache.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.Cache.SqlServer.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.Cache.Redis.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.Repository.Mongo.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.Messaging.Kafka.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.Messaging.RabbitMq.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.WebApi.Http.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.Dataverse.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.Storage.AzureStorage.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.Repository.OData.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi.Tests references NSubstitute.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-79eea168985d48a694da663a1d07984c/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/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-79eea168985d48a694da663a1d07984c/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/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 .49artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesnuget—nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan0—
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciesnone (no readable dependency manifest)—none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).0—

Run 01a16049-1a41-7343-995f-dabce5c2e2d2 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 58 · Warnings: 268 · Recommendations: 126 · Info: 37 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 21-10-2026 @ 21:06 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

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

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