Public report — Liquid-Application-Framework, published 29 Jul 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdog 29-07-2026 @ 20:28 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Avanade/Liquid-Application-Framework

50% At Risk

Small · 10,417 LoC · 32 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Security (42%)

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

57/60dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
43findings with an exact file:lineof 104 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
60/98dimensions across the health lenses10417 LoC · 32 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

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

Avanade/Liquid-Application-Framework carries serious risk (50%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.

The area that most needs attention is Security (42%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Readiness (52%) is the next concern — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection /… (Data Protection); 10 High finding(s) (Static Analysis (SAST)); security response headers (Content-Security-Policy (Web-Security Posture).

For scale: Small (~10,417 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Security 42% · 46% weightReadiness 52% · 25% weightMaturity 59% · 14% weightPerformance 60% · 8% weightArchitecture 64% · 4% weightCode Health 75% · 2% weight

Raise Security 42 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 50 → ~57.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 10%Plumbing 56%Tests 34%
New since the last scan (31+)

31 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-20) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D8 · Coverage not measured — test suite did not build
  • D17 · BarePragmaDisable repeated across 11 files src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs
  • D18 · Monorepo: only 1 of 9 solutions was scored
  • D22 · Redundant synchronous methods on the implementation class that are not present in the interface. The interface `ILiquidCache` defines only the async/Task-returning methods, but the concrete implementation `LiquidCache` exposes synchronous `Get`/`Set` methods. This breaks the abstraction and suggests the interface is incomplete or the implementation is leaking internal details.
  • D22 · Signature mismatch between interface and implementation. `ILiquidMapper` returns `Task<TTo>`, while `LiquidMapper` also returns `Task<TTo>`. However, `OcrResultMapper` (which likely implements a similar pattern) also has a `Map` method. The inconsistency is that `LiquidMapper` is a generic class implementing `ILiquidMapper`, but `OcrResultMapper` is a generic class that does not appear to implement a common interface in the provided list, or implements a different one. More critically, `LiquidMapper` and `OcrResultMapper` both have a `Map` method, but `OcrResultMapper` takes only `TFrom` and returns `OcrResult`, whereas `LiquidMapper` is fully generic. This is a domain-specific difference, but the naming `Map` vs `Map` is consistent. However, looking at `LiquidSerializerProvider.GetSerializerByType` vs `ILiquidSerializerProvider.GetSerializerByType`, these are consistent. The real issue is `LiquidCache` vs `ILiquidCache` as above.
  • D22 · The interface `ILiquidRepository` defines `FindByIdAsync`. The implementation `EntityFrameworkRepository` also defines `FindByIdAsync`. However, `EntityFrameworkRepository` also exposes `WhereInclude` methods which are not in the interface. While `WhereInclude` is an extension method in `ILiquidRepositoryExtensions`, the direct method on the class suggests a leak of implementation-specific behavior or a missing interface method if `WhereInclude` is considered part of the repository contract. If `WhereInclude` is just an extension, it's fine, but the class having it as a direct method is inconsistent with the interface which doesn't list it.
  • D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml
  • D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml
  • D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml
  • D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml
  • D29 · High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml
  • D29 · High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml
  • D29 · High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml
  • D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-templates.yaml
  • D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-templates.yaml
  • D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-templates.yaml
  • D30 · High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2
  • D30 · High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2
  • D30 · High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2
  • D30 · High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2
  • D30 · High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2
  • D30 · High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2
  • D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: IServiceCollectionExtensions.cs ↔ MongoRepository.cs src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Extensions/IServiceCollectionExtensions.cs
  • D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: DatabaseContextException.cs ↔ EntityFrameworkRepository.cs src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/DatabaseContextException.cs
  • D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: LiquidCultureDecorator.cs ↔ ServiceBusConsumer.cs src/Liquid.Core/Decorators/LiquidCultureDecorator.cs
  • D35 · Change coupling: LiquidCultureDecorator.cs ↔ LiquidScopedLoggingDecorator.cs src/Liquid.Core/Decorators/LiquidCultureDecorator.cs
  • D35 · Change coupling: IMongoClientFactory.cs ↔ MongoRepository.cs src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/IMongoClientFactory.cs
  • D35 · Change coupling: MongoClientFactory.cs ↔ MongoRepository.cs src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/MongoClientFactory.cs
  • D36 · Build action pinned to a mutable branch
  • D36 · Workflow token permissions not restricted
  • D36 · Secret passed as a command-line argument

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €4,300–€21,000
Cost to rebuild€4,300–€21,000 (0.1 person-years (72–221 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 50% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 67% boilerplate · 18% straight-line · 15% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€13,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 42% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — service/app × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.

1
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.).
+7.9 pts · Medium effort · Data Protection
2
Resolve the 10 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml (7), liquid-ci-cd-templates.yaml (3).
+6.8 pts · Medium effort · Static Analysis (SAST)
3
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
+6.7 pts · Medium effort · Web-Security Posture

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 42%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (10,417 LoC) · weakest lens: Security 42%
→ Direct remediation budget at Security first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: 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.). The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ 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.).

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

At a glance — Code Health · 75% · Strong

At a glance — Architecture · 64% · Adequate · gated by AX2

At a glance — Maturity · 59% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2

At a glance — Readiness · 52% · Adequate · gated by P4

At a glance — Security · 42% · Weak · gated by D29, D30, D36, C1

At a glance — Performance · 60% · Adequate

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
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components24High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection10High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by encrypting sensitive data at rest and managing keys in a secure vault, or confirm if this is handled by infrastructure. Next, address the ten high-severity static analysis findings, focusing on the CI/CD pipeline templates. Add essential security headers to the web application to strengthen the security posture. Finally, resolve the twelve high and ten medium severity dependency vulnerabilities to ensure a secure runtime environment.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
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.).+7.9 ptsMediumData Protection
Resolve the 10 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml (7), liquid-ci-cd-templates.yaml (3).+6.8 ptsMediumStatic Analysis (SAST)
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.+6.7 ptsMediumWeb-Security Posture
Resolve the 12 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.+5.2 ptsMediumDependency Vulnerabilities
Resolve the 10 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.+4.7 ptsMediumDependency Vulnerabilities
Resolve the 2 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.+2.3 ptsLowDependency Vulnerabilities
Resolve the 1 Build action pinned to a mutable branch finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+2.3 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.+3.4 ptsMediumObservability

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 18 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 67% mixed · 33% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
.github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml4.4MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
.github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-templates.yaml5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Liquid.Repository.Mongo.csproj5.5MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.csproj5.5MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Core/LocalizationTest.cs6.1MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Liquid.Core/Decorators/LiquidCultureDecorator.cs6.5MixedChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: LiquidCultureDecorator.cs ↔ ServiceBusConsumer.cs
src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtension.cs6.7MixedExplicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers
src/Liquid.Core/Localization/ILocalization.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers
src/Liquid.Core/Localization/JsonFileLocalization.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers
src/Liquid.Dataverse/DataverseEntityMapper.cs7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: DataverseEntityMapper.JsonToEntity (cyclomatic 20)
test/Liquid.Cache.NCache.Tests/IServiceCollectionExtensionTest.cs7.8MixedTest Quality: No assertions: AddLiquidNCacheDistributedCache_WhenWithTelemetryTrue_GetServicesReturnLiqudCache
src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/MongoClientFactory.cs7.8MixedChange Coupling: Change coupling: MongoClientFactory.cs ↔ MongoDataContext.cs
src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Extensions/IServiceCollectionExtensions.cs8.0Near-cleanChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: IServiceCollectionExtensions.cs ↔ MongoRepository.cs
src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/DatabaseContextException.cs8.0Near-cleanChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: DatabaseContextException.cs ↔ EntityFrameworkRepository.cs
src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable repeated across 11 files
test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Domain/RequestHandlerTest.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable
src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/IMongoClientFactory.cs8.5Near-cleanChange Coupling: Change coupling: IMongoClientFactory.cs ↔ MongoRepository.cs
test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Core/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtensionTest.cs9.4Near-cleanExplicit Debt: ObsoleteWithoutCallers

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. 57 of 60 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — 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 — 60 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D20D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D36AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8C1GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6P7P8PF1PF2PF3S1X1X2X3X4X5

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, 43 of 104 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.302✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.302✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets 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 019faf90-b1a0-73a5-984f-7ce8c6e8518c.

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.

  • D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.

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 (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • 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.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (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.
  • 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").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • 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 (5): D20, D21, D22, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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 Duplication10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtension.cs:30

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

0 of 32 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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 Quality9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 2 zero-assertion, 16 mock references across 273 tests.

No assertions: AddLiquidNCacheDistributedCache_WhenWithTelemetryTrue_GetServicesReturnLiqudCache · ×2test/Liquid.Cache.NCache.Tests/IServiceCollectionExtensionTest.cs:23
Mock framework: NSubstitute · ×16

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

0 of 62 packages use a banned license.

✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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 Factor9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 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.

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 Debt6.9 / 10Adequate✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 6.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

32 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 10417 LoC (1.5/KLoC) → score 6.9.

NoWarnInCsproj · ×8src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Liquid.Repository.Mongo.csproj:22
ObsoleteWithCallers · ×5src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtension.cs:23
CommentedOutCode · ×3test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Core/LocalizationTest.cs:5
BarePragmaDisable repeated across 11 filessrc/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs:58
BarePragmaDisabletest/Liquid.Core.Tests/Domain/RequestHandlerTest.cs:40

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

What to do

  1. 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).
  2. Resolve the 5 ObsoleteWithCallers finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ILocalization.cs (2), JsonFileLocalization.cs (2), IServiceCollectionLiquidExtension.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 3 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with LocalizationTest.cs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-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 Shape9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

32 projects, 305 source files, 15713 hand-written lines of code (10417 production / 5296 test), 16 inter-project edges.

Monorepo: only 1 of 9 solutions was scored
Thin analysable surface across projects

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Critical / 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 Consistency / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

3 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

Inconsistent naming for context-related classes: 'LiquidContext' vs 'LiquidContextNotifications'. It is unclear if these are distinct concepts or if 'Notifications' should be part of the main context or a separate service. If they are related, the naming is inconsistent.
Inconsistent naming for cache operations: 'GetAsync' and 'SetAsync' are standard, but 'RefreshAsync' is used instead of 'UpdateAsync' or 'InvalidateAsync'. This is a minor inconsistency in verb choice for cache operations.
Inconsistent naming for test methods: 'InsertNotificaton' (typo in Notification) vs 'UpsertKey'. The test method naming convention should be consistent across all test classes.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for context-related classes finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for cache operations finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for test methods finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D22 · Internal API Consistency / 10Adequate◐ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Adequate / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

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

Redundant synchronous methods on the implementation class that are not present in the interface. The interface `ILiquidCache` defines only the async/Task-returning methods, but the concrete implementation `LiquidCache` exposes synchronous `Get`/`Set` methods. This breaks the abstraction and suggests the interface is incomplete or the implementation is leaking internal details.
Signature mismatch between interface and implementation. `ILiquidMapper` returns `Task<TTo>`, while `LiquidMapper` also returns `Task<TTo>`. However, `OcrResultMapper` (which likely implements a similar pattern) also has a `Map` method. The inconsistency is that `LiquidMapper` is a generic class implementing `ILiquidMapper`, but `OcrResultMapper` is a generic class that does not appear to implement a common interface in the provided list, or implements a different one. More critically, `LiquidMapper` and `OcrResultMapper` both have a `Map` method, but `OcrResultMapper` takes only `TFrom` and returns `OcrResult`, whereas `LiquidMapper` is fully generic. This is a domain-specific difference, but the naming `Map` vs `Map` is consistent. However, looking at `LiquidSerializerProvider.GetSerializerByType` vs `ILiquidSerializerProvider.GetSerializerByType`, these are consistent. The real issue is `LiquidCache` vs `ILiquidCache` as above.
The interface `ILiquidRepository` defines `FindByIdAsync`. The implementation `EntityFrameworkRepository` also defines `FindByIdAsync`. However, `EntityFrameworkRepository` also exposes `WhereInclude` methods which are not in the interface. While `WhereInclude` is an extension method in `ILiquidRepositoryExtensions`, the direct method on the class suggests a leak of implementation-specific behavior or a missing interface method if `WhereInclude` is considered part of the repository contract. If `WhereInclude` is just an extension, it's fine, but the class having it as a direct method is inconsistent with the interface which doesn't list it.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Redundant synchronous methods on the implementation class that are not… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Signature mismatch between interface and implementation. `ILiquidMapper`… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 The interface `ILiquidRepository` defines `FindByIdAsync`. The… 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 Value / 10Adequate◐ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Adequate / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

12 valuable / 2 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 2 shown with locations.

redundant comment · ×2test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Core/LocalizationTest.cs:5

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with LocalizationTest.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 of 32 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.

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)1.8 / 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 1.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

10 finding(s): 0 critical, 10 high, 0 medium, 0 low.

High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag · ×10.github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml:35detected by semgrep finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 10 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml (7), liquid-ci-cd-templates.yaml (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 issue-level).

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs), direct or transitive.

Method: NuGet CVE scan via dotnet list package --vulnerable including transitive; severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades when absent.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

24 vulnerable package(s): 2 critical, 12 high, 10 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: AutoMapper 14.0.0 · ×12detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Critical CVE: System.Drawing.Common 5.0.0 · ×2detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Medium CVE: SharpCompress 0.30.1 · ×10detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

  1. Resolve the 12 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 10 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 2 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).

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

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.3 / 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 0.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

61 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.

Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. 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 Coupling9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: LiquidCultureDecorator.cs↔LiquidScopedLoggingDecorator.cs 80%; MongoClientFactory.cs↔MongoDataContext.cs 73%; IMongoClientFactory.cs↔MongoRepository.cs 67%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: IServiceCollectionExtensions.cs ↔ MongoRepository.cs · ×3src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Extensions/IServiceCollectionExtensions.cs
Change coupling: LiquidCultureDecorator.cs ↔ LiquidScopedLoggingDecorator.cs · ×4src/Liquid.Core/Decorators/LiquidCultureDecorator.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

Build action pinned to a mutable branch
Unpinned build actions
Workflow token permissions not restricted
Secret passed as a command-line argument
No build provenance

+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Build action pinned to a mutable branch finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Workflow token permissions not restricted 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.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX1 · Captive dependencies4.7 / 10Weak✓ 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.

  • `KafkaProducer` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IKafkaFactory 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 `IKafkaFactory` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes. — KafkaProducer.cs:17
  • `KafkaConsumer` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IKafkaFactory kafkaFactory`, 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 `IKafkaFactory` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes. — KafkaConsumer.cs:16
  • `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. — LiquidDataverse.cs:11

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 composition6.5 / 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.

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.

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
AX2 · Stateful singletons3.0 / 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.

  • `KafkaConsumer` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_client; e.g. `_client` at line 51). — KafkaConsumer.cs:16
  • `RabbitMqFactory` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_connection, _model, _disposed; e.g. `_connection` at line 39). — RabbitMqFactory.cs:10
  • `RabbitMqConsumer` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_channelModel; e.g. `_channelModel` at line 61). — RabbitMqConsumer.cs:21
  • `BlobClientFactory` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_clients; e.g. `_clients` at line 35). — BlobClientFactory.cs:7
  • `DataverseEntityMapper` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_entitiesMetadata; e.g. `_entitiesMetadata` at line 52). — DataverseEntityMapper.cs:14
  • `OpenAiClientFactory` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_openAiClients; e.g. `_openAiClients` at line 76). — 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.

AX4 · Dependency direction10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.

Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, 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 member counts; fat-interface threshold (over 15 members) flagged per type. 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.

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.).
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code9.9 / 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. (×4) — ServiceBusConsumer.cs:45, KafkaConsumer.cs:46, RabbitMqConsumer.cs:58, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs7.9 / 10Strong✓ 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, 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. — 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. — 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. — EntityFrameworkRepository.cs:95

What to do

  • Remove the dead code that still moves this score: delete dead if(false) / #if false branches and either do the real async work or drop the async keyword from fake-async methods.
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

  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 32 of 32 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 — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.

What to do

  • Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

P1 · CI/CD 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. 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 · Observability4.6 / 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 3/16 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).

What to do

  • Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
  • 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 & Rollback2.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

  • No release automation was found in CI — neither a deploy stage (Helm/Kubernetes/compose manifests, an orchestrated rollout) nor a publish job that ships the built artifact. Releases appear to be run by hand, which is slower, less repeatable and harder to reverse.

What to do

  • Automate the release in CI — a deploy stage for a service (Helm/Kubernetes manifests or an equivalent rollout), or a tag-triggered publish job for an artifact — so releases are repeatable and reversible.
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: Roslyn scan: Polly resilience markers (Retry, CircuitBreaker, Timeout) on outbound HTTP invocations. Computed per type, deterministic.

P8 · Schema migrations6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether EF Core schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than the un-evolvable EnsureCreated().

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage. Exhaustive per project, deterministic.

  • EF Core is used but neither migrations nor EnsureCreated were detected — confirm how the production schema is created and evolved.

What to do

  • Adopt a versioned schema-migration mechanism (with EF Core: dotnet ef migrations add + Migrate() on startup) as the explicit, versioned schema strategy — no migration mechanism was detected.
PF1 · Benchmark discipline6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the library 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 — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

  • No benchmark suite was found. For a performance-sensitive library, 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 — Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

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

What to do

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

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code keeps its host responsive — a library awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) (so it never captures and stalls the host's context) and avoids sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) that wastes threads and risks deadlock.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) counted everywhere, and — for a library with ≥5 awaits — the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

  • Only 3/113 awaits 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.

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 Posture8.0 / 10Strong✓ 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. Deterministic.

  • No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)

What to do

  • Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
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.

X2 · Cancellation propagation7.0 / 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.

  • Only 14/28 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. (×11) — IMongoCollectionExtensions.cs:20, IMongoCollectionExtensions.cs:70, IMongoCollectionExtensions.cs:88, …
  • No CancellationToken parameter — the body observes an ambient token instead (a field or a context object), so the work does stop on cancellation, but a caller cannot cancel this call independently of the owner that created that token. (×3) — IMongoCollectionExtensions.cs:38, IMongoCollectionExtensions.cs:54, ServiceBusConsumer.cs:62

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
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.

X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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. Deterministic.

X5 · Nullable reference types6.0 / 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.

  • 8/16 projects enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable>. NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

What to do

  • Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.

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 Health75%StrongStrongest area.
Architecture64%Adequate — gated by AX2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity59%Adequate — gated by D34, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness52%Adequate — gated by P4Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security42%Weak — gated by D29, D30, D36, C1Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance60%AdequateAcceptable, with room to improve.
Not included — 38 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.
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
  • C2 Access Controls — Partial workspace load — the web/host project 'PROJECTNAME.WebApi' present on disk did not load into the C# workspace (it failed to build/restore and was silently dropped), so its authorization signals were never scanned. The surviving documents carry no evidence for this control, but absence of evidence in an INCOMPLETE document set is not evidence the control is missing — the relevant middleware/attributes most plausibly live in the dropped project. This dimension is therefore Not-evidenced (excluded from the score) rather than asserting a confident negative. Restore/build that project (see diagnostics.md) so it loads and the dimension can be scored.
  • C3 Audit Trail — 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.
  • D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • 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.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
  • 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.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — test suite did not build
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): 1 event handler(s); a message-bus package
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • 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) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 36 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×12
  • High CVE: AutoMapper 14.0.0 — AutoMapper 14.0.0 (direct) has a High advisory; affects 32 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 15.1.1
  • High CVE: Snappier 1.0.0 — Snappier 1.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 1.3.1
  • High CVE: System.Data.SqlClient 4.5.1 — System.Data.SqlClient 4.5.1 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 4.8.6
  • High CVE: System.Net.Http.WinHttpHandler 4.4.0 — System.Net.Http.WinHttpHandler 4.4.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 4.5.4
  • High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 8.0.3
  • High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 8.0.3
  • High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 8.0.4
  • High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 8.0.4
  • High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 8.0.4
  • High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 8.0.4
  • High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 8.0.4
  • High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 8.0.2 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 8.0.3
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · High · ×10
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml:35 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml:43 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml:50 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-java@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-java@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-java/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml:57 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-dotnet@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-dotnet@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-dotnet/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
  • High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml:74 — Using variable interpolation `${{...}}` with a workflow input in a `run:` step could allow an attacker to inject their own code into the runner. This would allow them to steal secrets and code. A workflow input is not bounded by this step and should be treated as untrusted. Instead, use an intermediate environment variable with `env:` to store the data and use the environment variable in the `run:` script. Reference it as a shell VARIABLE rather than a `${{ }}` interpolation, using your shell's own syntax (`"$ENVVAR"` in bash, `$env:ENVVAR` in PowerShell), so the value is passed as data and never re-expanded as code.
  • High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml:81 — Using variable interpolation `${{...}}` with a workflow input / an expression value in a `run:` step could allow an attacker to inject their own code into the runner. This would allow them to steal secrets and code. A workflow input / an expression value is not bounded by this step and should be treated as untrusted. Instead, use an intermediate environment variable with `env:` to store the data and use the environment variable in the `run:` script. Reference it as a shell VARIABLE rather than a `${{ }}` interpolation, using your shell's own syntax (`"$ENVVAR"` in bash, `$env:ENVVAR` in PowerShell), so the value is passed as data and never re-expanded as code.
  • High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml:107 — Using variable interpolation `${{...}}` with a workflow input / an expression value in a `run:` step could allow an attacker to inject their own code into the runner. This would allow them to steal secrets and code. A workflow input / an expression value is not bounded by this step and should be treated as untrusted. Instead, use an intermediate environment variable with `env:` to store the data and use the environment variable in the `run:` script. Reference it as a shell VARIABLE rather than a `${{ }}` interpolation, using your shell's own syntax (`"$ENVVAR"` in bash, `$env:ENVVAR` in PowerShell), so the value is passed as data and never re-expanded as code.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-templates.yaml:36 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-templates.yaml:44 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-templates.yaml:49 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-dotnet@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-dotnet@v1.7.2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-dotnet/commits/v1.7.2 --jq .sha`.
D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×8
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Liquid.Repository.Mongo.csproj:22 — 1701
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.csproj:17 — 1701
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Liquid.Repository.Mongo.csproj:22 — 1702
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.csproj:17 — 1702
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Liquid.Repository.Mongo.csproj:22 — 1584
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.csproj:17 — 1584
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/Liquid.Repository.Mongo.csproj:22 — 1658
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework.csproj:17 — 1658
D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×3
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: IServiceCollectionExtensions.cs ↔ MongoRepository.cs src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Extensions/IServiceCollectionExtensions.cs — `src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/Extensions/IServiceCollectionExtensions.cs` (context Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework) and `src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/MongoRepository.cs` (context Liquid.Repository.Mongo) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 54% of the time (7 of the 13 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: DatabaseContextException.cs ↔ EntityFrameworkRepository.cs src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/DatabaseContextException.cs — `src/Liquid.Core/Exceptions/DatabaseContextException.cs` (context Liquid) and `src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs` (context Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: LiquidCultureDecorator.cs ↔ ServiceBusConsumer.cs src/Liquid.Core/Decorators/LiquidCultureDecorator.cs — `src/Liquid.Core/Decorators/LiquidCultureDecorator.cs` (context Liquid) and `src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusConsumer.cs` (context Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×2
  • Critical CVE: System.Drawing.Common 5.0.0 — System.Drawing.Common 5.0.0 (transitive) has a Critical advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 5.0.3
  • Critical CVE: System.Text.Encodings.Web 4.5.0 — System.Text.Encodings.Web 4.5.0 (transitive) has a Critical advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Build action pinned to a mutable branch · ×1
  • Build action pinned to a mutable branch — 16 CI action reference(s) point at a mutable BRANCH rather than a version tag or a commit SHA, 16 of them on a THIRD-PARTY action: `Avanade/Liquid-Application-Framework/.github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml@main` (.github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-storage-azurestorage.yml:21), `Avanade/Liquid-Application-Framework/.github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml@main` (.github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-repository-odata.yml:21), `Avanade/Liquid-Application-Framework/.github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml@main` (.github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-repository-mongodb.yml:21), `Avanade/Liquid-Application-Framework/.github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml@main` (.github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-repository-entityframework.yml:21), `Avanade/Liquid-Application-Framework/.github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml@main` (.github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-messaging-servicebus.yaml:21), `Avanade/Liquid-Application-Framework/.github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml@main` (.github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-messaging-rabbitmq.yaml:21), … (+10 more). A branch re-points on every upstream push, so whatever its tip holds when the job runs executes inside your pipeline with that job's secrets — a version tag at least moves only when the publisher cuts a release. Pin these to a full commit SHA first; the remaining tag refs are the same control at a lower blast radius.
Warning — 38 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×10
  • Medium CVE: SharpCompress 0.30.1 — SharpCompress 0.30.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 0.48.0
  • Medium CVE: System.Data.SqlClient 4.5.1 — System.Data.SqlClient 4.5.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 4.8.5
  • Medium CVE: System.DirectoryServices.Protocols 4.5.0 — System.DirectoryServices.Protocols 4.5.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 5.0.1
  • Medium CVE: System.Private.ServiceModel 4.4.1 — System.Private.ServiceModel 4.4.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 4.4.4
  • Medium CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 4.5.0 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 4.5.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 4.7.1
  • Medium CVE: System.ServiceModel.Duplex 4.4.1 — System.ServiceModel.Duplex 4.4.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: System.ServiceModel.Http 4.4.1 — System.ServiceModel.Http 4.4.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: System.ServiceModel.NetTcp 4.4.1 — System.ServiceModel.NetTcp 4.4.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: System.ServiceModel.Primitives 4.4.1 — System.ServiceModel.Primitives 4.4.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: System.ServiceModel.Security 4.4.1 — System.ServiceModel.Security 4.4.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithCallers · ×5
  • ObsoleteWithCallers src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtension.cs:23 — [Obsolete] AddLiquidTelemetryInterceptor
  • ObsoleteWithCallers src/Liquid.Core/Localization/ILocalization.cs:9 — [Obsolete] ILocalization
  • ObsoleteWithCallers src/Liquid.Core/Localization/ILocalization.cs:42 — [Obsolete] Get
  • ObsoleteWithCallers src/Liquid.Core/Localization/JsonFileLocalization.cs:78 — [Obsolete] Get
  • ObsoleteWithCallers src/Liquid.Core/Localization/JsonFileLocalization.cs:19 — [Obsolete] JsonFileLocalization
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×4
  • Change coupling: LiquidCultureDecorator.cs ↔ LiquidScopedLoggingDecorator.cs src/Liquid.Core/Decorators/LiquidCultureDecorator.cs — `src/Liquid.Core/Decorators/LiquidCultureDecorator.cs` and `src/Liquid.Core/Decorators/LiquidScopedLoggingDecorator.cs` change together 80% of the time (8 of the 10 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: MongoClientFactory.cs ↔ MongoDataContext.cs src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/MongoClientFactory.cs — `src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/MongoClientFactory.cs` and `src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/MongoDataContext.cs` change together 73% of the time (11 of the 15 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: IMongoClientFactory.cs ↔ MongoRepository.cs src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/IMongoClientFactory.cs — `src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/IMongoClientFactory.cs` and `src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/MongoRepository.cs` change together 67% of the time (8 of the 12 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: MongoClientFactory.cs ↔ MongoRepository.cs src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/MongoClientFactory.cs — `src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/MongoClientFactory.cs` and `src/Liquid.Repository.Mongo/MongoRepository.cs` change together 53% of the time (8 of the 15 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
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
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×2
  • No assertions: AddLiquidNCacheDistributedCache_WhenWithTelemetryTrue_GetServicesReturnLiqudCache test/Liquid.Cache.NCache.Tests/IServiceCollectionExtensionTest.cs:23 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: AddLiquidNCacheDistributedCache_WhenWithTelemetryfalse_GetServicesReturnLiqudCache test/Liquid.Cache.NCache.Tests/IServiceCollectionExtensionTest.cs:42 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
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, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable repeated across 11 files · ×1
  • BarePragmaDisable repeated across 11 files src/Liquid.Repository.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkRepository.cs:58 — The identical BarePragmaDisable (`#pragma warning disable CS1998 // Async method lacks 'await' operators and will run synchronously`) appears in 11 files (14 occurrences) — a single repo-wide policy (e.g. a Directory.Build.props decision or an idiomatic suppression), not 14 independent debts. Decide it once centrally rather than file-by-file. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable · ×1
  • BarePragmaDisable test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Domain/RequestHandlerTest.cs:40 — #pragma warning disable CS0618
D18 · Solution Shape · Monorepo · ×1
  • Monorepo: only 1 of 9 solutions was scored — This repository contains 9 .NET solutions, but a scan analyzes ONE. Every score, lens, and finding here reflects only `Liquid.Application.Framework.sln` — the other 8 (`Liquid.Adapters.sln`, `samples/Liquid.Sample.Dataverse.sln`, `samples/Liquid.Sample.MessagingConsumer.sln`, `samples/Liquid.Sample.WebApi.sln`, `templates/Liquid.Templates.sln`, `templates/src/Liquid.Templates/Templates/Liquid.Crud.Solution/src/PROJECTNAME.Microservice.sln`, +2 more) were not analyzed and are not represented in the headline. To cover them, scan each solution as its own target and group them in a Solution or Product for a portfolio roll-up. If a secondary solution is an archived or vendored tree, declare it — `.gitattributes` (`path/** linguist-vendored`) or `.editorconfig` (`[path/**] generated_code = true`) — to exclude it from discovery the same way generated code is.
D19 · Documentation Quality · LLM evaluation failed · ×1
  • LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.findings[1].issue | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 1149.
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, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · Redundant synchronous methods on the implementation class that are not present in the interface. The interface `ILiquidCache` defines only the async/Task-returning methods, but the concrete implementation `LiquidCache` exposes synchronous `Get`/`Set` methods. This breaks the abstraction and suggests the interface is incomplete or the implementation is leaking internal details. · ×1
  • Redundant synchronous methods on the implementation class that are not present in the interface. The interface `ILiquidCache` defines only the async/Task-returning methods, but the concrete implementation `LiquidCache` exposes synchronous `Get`/`Set` methods. This breaks the abstraction and suggests the interface is incomplete or the implementation is leaking internal details. — Either add the synchronous methods to `ILiquidCache` if they are part of the public contract, or remove the synchronous methods from `LiquidCache` to enforce the async-only contract defined in the interface. (signatures: LiquidCache.Get<T> | LiquidCache.GetAsync<T> | ILiquidCache.Get<T> | ILiquidCache.GetAsync<T>)
D22 · Internal API Consistency · Signature mismatch between interface and implementation. `ILiquidMapper` returns `Task<TTo>`, while `LiquidMapper` also returns `Task<TTo>`. However, `OcrResultMapper` (which likely implements a similar pattern) also has a `Map` method. The inconsistency is that `LiquidMapper` is a generic class implementing `ILiquidMapper`, but `OcrResultMapper` is a generic class that does not appear to implement a common interface in the provided list, or implements a different one. More critically, `LiquidMapper` and `OcrResultMapper` both have a `Map` method, but `OcrResultMapper` takes only `TFrom` and returns `OcrResult`, whereas `LiquidMapper` is fully generic. This is a domain-specific difference, but the naming `Map` vs `Map` is consistent. However, looking at `LiquidSerializerProvider.GetSerializerByType` vs `ILiquidSerializerProvider.GetSerializerByType`, these are consistent. The real issue is `LiquidCache` vs `ILiquidCache` as above. · ×1
  • Signature mismatch between interface and implementation. `ILiquidMapper` returns `Task<TTo>`, while `LiquidMapper` also returns `Task<TTo>`. However, `OcrResultMapper` (which likely implements a similar pattern) also has a `Map` method. The inconsistency is that `LiquidMapper` is a generic class implementing `ILiquidMapper`, but `OcrResultMapper` is a generic class that does not appear to implement a common interface in the provided list, or implements a different one. More critically, `LiquidMapper` and `OcrResultMapper` both have a `Map` method, but `OcrResultMapper` takes only `TFrom` and returns `OcrResult`, whereas `LiquidMapper` is fully generic. This is a domain-specific difference, but the naming `Map` vs `Map` is consistent. However, looking at `LiquidSerializerProvider.GetSerializerByType` vs `ILiquidSerializerProvider.GetSerializerByType`, these are consistent. The real issue is `LiquidCache` vs `ILiquidCache` as above. — (signatures: LiquidMapper<TFrom, TTo>.Map | ILiquidMapper<TFrom, TTo>.Map)
D22 · Internal API Consistency · The interface `ILiquidRepository` defines `FindByIdAsync`. The implementation `EntityFrameworkRepository` also defines `FindByIdAsync`. However, `EntityFrameworkRepository` also exposes `WhereInclude` methods which are not in the interface. While `WhereInclude` is an extension method in `ILiquidRepositoryExtensions`, the direct method on the class suggests a leak of implementation-specific behavior or a missing interface method if `WhereInclude` is considered part of the repository contract. If `WhereInclude` is just an extension, it's fine, but the class having it as a direct method is inconsistent with the interface which doesn't list it. · ×1
  • The interface `ILiquidRepository` defines `FindByIdAsync`. The implementation `EntityFrameworkRepository` also defines `FindByIdAsync`. However, `EntityFrameworkRepository` also exposes `WhereInclude` methods which are not in the interface. While `WhereInclude` is an extension method in `ILiquidRepositoryExtensions`, the direct method on the class suggests a leak of implementation-specific behavior or a missing interface method if `WhereInclude` is considered part of the repository contract. If `WhereInclude` is just an extension, it's fine, but the class having it as a direct method is inconsistent with the interface which doesn't list it. — (signatures: ILiquidRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier>.FindByIdAsync | EntityFrameworkRepository<TEntity, TIdentifier, TContext>.FindByIdAsync)
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Unpinned build actions · ×1
  • Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity. 23 floating ref(s) across 18 workflow file(s), 16 of them mutable BRANCH refs (reported separately, pin those first): `actions/checkout@v2` (.github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-templates.yaml:36), `actions/checkout@v2` (.github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-templates.yaml:44), `actions/setup-dotnet@v1.7.2` (.github/workflows/liquid-ci-cd-templates.yaml:49), `actions/checkout@v3` (.github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml:35), `actions/checkout@v3` (.github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml:43), `actions/setup-java@v3` (.github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml:50), `actions/setup-dotnet@v2` (.github/workflows/base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml:57)
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Workflow token permissions not restricted · ×1
  • Workflow token permissions not restricted — No workflow declares a `permissions:` block, so every job runs with the repository's default GITHUB_TOKEN scope (18 workflow file(s) checked). On a repository whose default is read/write, a compromised action or a malicious pull request inherits write access to code, issues, releases and packages. Declare a least-privilege `permissions:` block — `permissions: {contents: read}` at the top of each workflow, widened per job only where a job genuinely writes.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Secret passed as a command-line argument · ×1
  • Secret passed as a command-line argument — 1 CI command(s) pass a credential as a bare command-line argument, where it is visible in the runner's process table to any other process on the host (and to anything that logs a command line): base-liquid-ci-and-cd.yml: dotnet nuget push *.nupkg --source https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json --api-key ${{ secrets.nuget_token }} --skip-duplicate. Pass the credential through the environment instead (an `env:` mapping on the step, read by the tool from its own variable) or on stdin, so it never appears in an argument vector.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtension.cs:30 — src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtension.cs:30-38 | src/Liquid.Core/Extensions/DependencyInjection/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtension.cs:70-78 — 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.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — test suite did not build — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the repo's own test suite did not build (a C#/MSBuild compiler error in the test code), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. Fix the test build, or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces, and real coverage will be measured.
Recommendation — 14 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×2
  • redundant comment test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Core/LocalizationTest.cs:5 — "private const string StringValueKey = "stringValueKey"" — delete - restates the constant name
  • redundant comment test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Core/LocalizationTest.cs:6 — "private ILocalization _subjectUnderTest;" — delete - auto-generated member name
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 2 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/Liquid.GenAi.OpenAi/OpenAiAdapter.cs, src/Liquid.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusConsumer.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithoutCallers · ×1
  • ObsoleteWithoutCallers test/Liquid.Core.Tests/Core/IServiceCollectionLiquidExtensionTest.cs:16 — [Obsolete] AddLiquidTelemetryInterceptor_WhenSuccessfullyInjectsInterceptor_GetServiceSuccessfully
D18 · Solution Shape · Thin analysable surface across projects · ×1
  • Thin analysable surface across projects — 5 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `Liquid.Cache.Redis` with 17 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 90 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 0.8 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent naming for context-related classes · ×1
  • Inconsistent naming for context-related classes: 'LiquidContext' vs 'LiquidContextNotifications'. It is unclear if these are distinct concepts or if 'Notifications' should be part of the main context or a separate service. If they are related, the naming is inconsistent. — (symbols: Liquid.Core.Implementations.LiquidContext, Liquid.Core.Implementations.LiquidContextNotifications)
D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent naming for cache operations · ×1
  • Inconsistent naming for cache operations: 'GetAsync' and 'SetAsync' are standard, but 'RefreshAsync' is used instead of 'UpdateAsync' or 'InvalidateAsync'. This is a minor inconsistency in verb choice for cache operations. — (symbols: Liquid.Core.Implementations.LiquidCache.GetAsync, Liquid.Core.Implementations.LiquidCache.SetAsync, Liquid.Core.Implementations.LiquidCache.RefreshAsync)
D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent naming for test methods · ×1
  • Inconsistent naming for test methods: 'InsertNotificaton' (typo in Notification) vs 'UpsertKey'. The test method naming convention should be consistent across all test classes. — (symbols: Liquid.Core.Tests.Core.LiquidContextNotificationsTest.InsertNotificaton_WhenContextHasNoNotifications_Inserted, Liquid.Core.Tests.Core.LiquidContextTest.UpsertKey_WhenUpdateKey_KeyUpdated)
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — At 10417 LoC spread over 32 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["Acme.Catalog"]`.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 61 of 63 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 61 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No build provenance · ×1
  • No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI (e.g. slsa-github-generator, actions/attest-build-provenance).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No artifact signing · ×1
  • No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI — sign your released artifacts with whatever your ecosystem ships (a GPG/minisign detached signature — or `cosign sign-blob` — over the release archives, or over a checksum file published alongside them, Authenticode via signtool, or `dotnet nuget sign` for packages) so consumers can verify what you built.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No SBOM · ×1
  • No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found — produce one with what your ecosystem ships (`dotnet sbom-tool generate` (or the CycloneDX .NET tool) over the solution, `syft` (or `anchore/sbom-action` in CI) over the source tree or released image). Publish it as a release asset (`*.spdx.json` / `*.cdx.json`) so consumers can see what they are installing.
Info — 16 finding(s)
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)gitleaksgitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrepsemgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .10artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnetdotnet list Liquid.Application.Framework.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json24artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivytrivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrepsemgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.0
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivytrivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosuredisclosure: 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
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scannerosv-scanner: not applicable — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.0
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardeningruntime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardeningruntime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardeningruntime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0

Run 019faf90-b1a0-73a5-984f-7ce8c6e8518c · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Downloadable artifacts

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

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