Public report — silverback, 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 @ 19:47 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

BEagle1984/silverback

70% Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
upper third — near Strong

Medium · 66,117 LoC · 43 projects · rebuild ~2.2 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (63%)

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

63/66dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
64findings with an exact file:lineof 100 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
66/108dimensions across the health lenses66117 LoC · 43 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.

BEagle1984/silverback is in a workable but fragile state (70%). It is not in crisis, but it carries material risk that makes change slower and incidents harder to contain if left unaddressed.

It is strongest in Event-Driven (100%) — its messaging keeps components properly decoupled. Code Health (85%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (63%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Make types internal by default (Library API & versioning); Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup… (DR & Backup); versioned schema-migration mechanism (with EF Core (Schema migrations).

For scale: Medium (~66,117 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~2.2 person-years (~1–5 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.

Encouragingly, the gaps are in documentation and release process — not in the code's correctness, structure or security, which are strong. They're low-risk to close, and doing so would lift the grade without re-engineering anything that already works.

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 63% · 45% weightArchitecture 74% · 25% weightMaturity 74% · 14% weightSecurity 75% · 8% weightDomain Modelling 80% · 4% weightPerformance 80% · 2% weightCode Health 85% · 1% weightEvent-Driven 100% · 1% weight

Raise Readiness 63 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 70 → ~73.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 7%Plumbing 40%Tests 54%
New since the last scan (33+)

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

  • D3 · TooManyMethods: KafkaClientConfigurationBuilder src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Configuration/Kafka/KafkaClientConfigurationBuilder`1.cs
  • D3 · TooManyMethods: SilverbackBuilder src/Silverback.Core/Configuration/SilverbackBuilder.AddSubscriber.cs
  • D3 · TooManyMethods: MqttProducerEndpointConfigurationBuilder src/Silverback.Integration.MQTT/Messaging/Configuration/Mqtt/MqttProducerEndpointConfigurationBuilder`1.cs
  • D6 · Low cohesion: KafkaProducerConfigurationBuilder (LCOM4 7) src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Configuration/Kafka/KafkaProducerConfigurationBuilder.cs
  • D8 · Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
  • D12 · Prerelease dependency: StyleCop.Analyzers
  • D17 · BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka.Testing/Messaging/Serialization/MockedConfluentSchemaRegistryClient.cs
  • D17 · BarePragmaDisable tests/Silverback.Integration.MQTT.Tests/Messaging/Configuration/Mqtt/MqttClientConfigurationTests.cs
  • D17 · BarePragmaDisable tests/Silverback.Integration.MQTT.Tests/Messaging/Messages/MqttHeadersMappingExtensionsTests.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka.Testing/Testing/KafkaTestingHelper.GetProducer.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment src/Silverback.Integration.MQTT.Testing/Testing/MqttTestingHelper.GetProducer.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka.Testing/Testing/KafkaTestingHelper.GetProducer.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment src/Silverback.Integration.MQTT.Testing/Testing/MqttTestingHelper.GetProducer.cs
  • D17 · BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/BrokerStatistics.cs
  • D17 · BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/ConsumerGroupStatistics.cs
  • D17 · BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/ExactlyOnceSemanticsStatistics.cs
  • D17 · BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/KafkaStatistics.cs
  • D17 · BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/PartitionStatistics.cs
  • D17 · BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/TopicPartitions.cs
  • D17 · BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/TopicStatistics.cs
  • D17 · BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/WindowStatistics.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E/Kafka/ChunkingTests.Batch.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E/Kafka/ChunkingTests.Batch.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E/Kafka/ChunkingTests.Batch.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E/Kafka/ChunkingTests.Batch.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E/Kafka/ChunkingTests.Batch.cs
  • D17 · NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Packages.props
  • D17 · NoWarnInCsproj testbench/Directory.Packages.props
  • D17 · NoWarnInCsproj samples/Directory.Packages.props
  • D17 · NoWarnInCsproj benchmarks/Directory.Packages.props
  • D17 · NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props
  • D17 · NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props
  • D17 · NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props

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 — €110,000–€540,000
Cost to rebuild€110,000–€540,000 (1.1–3.4 person-years (1,798–5,710 h), ~1–5 engineers)
Domain complexityVery high — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor1.0× (at 70% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeMedium · 66% boilerplate · 19% straight-line · 14% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~2.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€330,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 63% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Very high (×1.9) — microservices, DDD/clean architecture, domain model, event-driven integration × a 1.0× 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
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with App.xaml.cs.
+5.4 pts · Low effort · Secret Scanning
2
Resolve the 1 Inverted test pyramid finding(s) in Test Distribution.
+2.9 pts · Low effort · Test Distribution
3
Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.
+5.6 pts · Medium effort · Library API & versioning

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~2.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 63%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~2.2 person-years rebuild (66,117 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 63%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.

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 Core.Model.Tests Core.Model.Tests Core.Rx.Tests Core.Rx.Tests Core.Tests Core.Tests Integration.HealthChecks.Tests Integration.HealthChecks.Tests Integration.Kafka.SchemaRegistry.Tests Integration.Kafka.SchemaRegistry.Tests Integration.Kafka.Testing.Tests Integration.Kafka.Testing.Tests Integration.Kafka.Tests Integration.Kafka.Tests Integration.MQTT.Testing.Tests Integration.MQTT.Testing.Tests Integration.MQTT.Tests Integration.MQTT.Tests Integration.Newtonsoft.Tests Integration.Newtonsoft.Tests Integration.Testing.Tests Integration.Testing.Tests Integration.Tests Integration.Tests Integration.Tests.E2E Integration.Tests.E2E Storage.EntityFramework.Tests Storage.EntityFramework.Tests Storage.Memory.Tests Storage.Memory.Tests Storage.PostgreSql.Tests Storage.PostgreSql.Tests Storage.Relational.Tests Storage.Relational.Tests Storage.Sqlite.Tests Storage.Sqlite.Tests Tests.Common Tests.Common Tests.Common.Integration Tests.Common.Integration Tests.Performance Tests.Performance Tools.Generators.Docs.Headers Tools.Generators.Docs.Headers ctx:Core Core 1 project Tools.Generators.Docs.Headers->ctx:Core ctx:Integration Integration 1 project Tools.Generators.Docs.Headers->ctx:Integration ctx:Integration.Kafka Integration.Kafka 1 project Tools.Generators.Docs.Headers->ctx:Integration.Kafka ctx:Integration.MQTT Integration.MQTT 1 project Tools.Generators.Docs.Headers->ctx:Integration.MQTT Tools.Generators.Docs.LogEvents Tools.Generators.Docs.LogEvents Tools.Generators.Docs.LogEvents->ctx:Core Tools.Generators.Docs.LogEvents->ctx:Integration Tools.Generators.Docs.LogEvents->ctx:Integration.Kafka Tools.Generators.Docs.LogEvents->ctx:Integration.MQTT Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies ctx:tools tools 1 project Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies->ctx:tools Tools.Generators.MqttConfigProxies Tools.Generators.MqttConfigProxies Tools.Generators.MqttConfigProxies->ctx:tools ctx:Common (samples/Kafka/Basic.Common) Common (samples/Kafka/Basic.Common) 1 project ctx:Common (samples/MQTT/Basic.Common) Common (samples/MQTT/Basic.Common) 1 project ctx:Consumer (samples/Kafka/Basic.Consumer) Consumer (samples/Kafka/Basic.Consumer) 1 project ctx:Consumer (samples/Kafka/Basic.Consumer)->ctx:Common (samples/Kafka/Basic.Common) ctx:Core.Model Core.Model 1 project ctx:Core.Model->ctx:Core ctx:Integration->ctx:Core ctx:Integration.Kafka->ctx:Integration ctx:Integration.MQTT->ctx:Integration ctx:Storage.EntityFramework Storage.EntityFramework 1 project ctx:Storage.EntityFramework->ctx:Core ctx:Storage.EntityFramework->ctx:Core.Model ctx:Storage.EntityFramework->ctx:Integration ctx:Storage.EntityFramework->ctx:Integration.Kafka ctx:Storage.Relational Storage.Relational 1 project ctx:Storage.EntityFramework->ctx:Storage.Relational ctx:Storage.Memory Storage.Memory 1 project ctx:Storage.Memory->ctx:Core ctx:Storage.Memory->ctx:Integration ctx:Storage.Memory->ctx:Integration.Kafka ctx:Storage.PostgreSql Storage.PostgreSql 1 project ctx:Storage.PostgreSql->ctx:Core ctx:Storage.PostgreSql->ctx:Integration ctx:Storage.PostgreSql->ctx:Integration.Kafka ctx:Storage.PostgreSql->ctx:Storage.Relational ctx:Storage.Relational->ctx:Core ctx:Storage.Relational->ctx:Integration ctx:Storage.Relational->ctx:Integration.Kafka ctx:Storage.Sqlite Storage.Sqlite 1 project ctx:Storage.Sqlite->ctx:Core ctx:Storage.Sqlite->ctx:Integration ctx:Storage.Sqlite->ctx:Integration.Kafka ctx:Storage.Sqlite->ctx:Storage.Memory ctx:Storage.Sqlite->ctx:Storage.Relational ctx:tools->ctx:Core __more__ +13 more contexts

At a glance — Code Health · 85% · Strong

At a glance — Architecture · 74% · Strong

At a glance — Maturity · 74% · Strong

At a glance — Readiness · 63% · Adequate

At a glance — Security · 75% · Strong

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 80% · Strong

At a glance — Event-Driven · 100% · Exemplary

At a glance — Performance · 80% · Strong

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration2High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures1High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection1High / Critical

Roadmap

First, restrict the library's public API by making types internal by default to allow safe internal refactoring. Next, document recovery time and recovery point objectives, and implement a tested restore procedure to ensure true disaster recovery. Then, implement a versioned schema migration strategy using EF Core to manage database changes explicitly. After that, resolve the single leaked secret found in App.xaml.cs. Finally, extend structured logging to all remaining service-like projects to ensure full production observability.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with App.xaml.cs.+5.4 ptsLowSecret Scanning
Resolve the 1 Inverted test pyramid finding(s) in Test Distribution.+2.9 ptsLowTest Distribution
Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.+5.6 ptsMediumLibrary API & versioning
Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).+5.6 ptsMediumDR & Backup
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.+5.6 ptsMediumSchema migrations
Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.+5.4 ptsMediumObservability
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.+5.4 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling
Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.+5.4 ptsMediumDeployment & Rollback

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 47 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 34% mixed · 66% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
Directory.Build.props5.8MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
testbench/Silverback.TestBench.Consumer/Dockerfile6.5MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E/Kafka/ChunkingTests.Batch.cs6.5MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Configuration/Kafka/KafkaProducerConfigurationBuilder.cs7.0MixedGod Classes: TooManyMethods: KafkaProducerConfigurationBuilder
src/Silverback.Integration.MQTT/Messaging/Configuration/Mqtt/MqttProducerEndpointConfigurationBuilder`1.cs7.0MixedGod Classes: TooManyMethods: MqttProducerEndpointConfigurationBuilder
testbench/Silverback.TestBench/App.xaml.cs7.2MixedSecret Scanning: Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential
.github/dependabot.yml7.2MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: dependabot-missing-cooldown
tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/DocumentationProvider.cs7.3MixedGod Classes: ClassTooLong: DocumentationProvider
src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka.Testing/Testing/KafkaTestingHelper.GetProducer.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Silverback.Integration.MQTT.Testing/Testing/MqttTestingHelper.GetProducer.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Directory.Packages.props7.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
testbench/Directory.Packages.props7.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
samples/Directory.Packages.props7.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
benchmarks/Directory.Packages.props7.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
src/Silverback.Storage.Sqlite/Messaging/Producing/TransactionalOutbox/SqliteOutboxWriter.cs7.8MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (19 lines × 2)
tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/ParentProxyClassGenerator.cs7.8MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)
src/Silverback.Core.Rx/Messaging/Subscribers/MessageStreamObservable`1.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Silverback.Core/AsyncEvent`1.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: BareSuppressMessage repeated across 54 files
src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka.Testing/Messaging/Serialization/MockedConfluentSchemaRegistryClient.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable
tests/Silverback.Integration.MQTT.Tests/Messaging/Configuration/Mqtt/MqttClientConfigurationTests.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable

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. 63 of 66 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 — 66 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D20D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D31D34D35D39AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8DM3DM5DM6DM8ED1ED3ED4GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P5P6P8PF1PF2PF3S1X1X2X3X4X5

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, 64 of 100 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 019faf6a-83e1-729e-90d9-febf333e3939.

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.
  • 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.
  • D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
  • 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 (4): D20, D21, 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 Complexity10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15. A further 4 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being DocumentationProvider.AppendSummaryForClientConfig at 94 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

D3 · God Classes9.2 / 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 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

11 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: KafkaClientsConfigurationBuilder · ×8src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Configuration/Kafka/KafkaClientsConfigurationBuilder.cs:0
ClassTooLong: DocumentationProvider · ×2tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/DocumentationProvider.cs:0
FileTooLong: Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/DocumentationProvider.cstools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/DocumentationProvider.cs:0

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D4 · Code Duplication9.9 / 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

9 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×2src/Silverback.Storage.Sqlite/Messaging/Producing/TransactionalOutbox/SqliteOutboxWriter.cs:84
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×2tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/ParentProxyClassGenerator.cs:28
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3)src/Silverback.Integration/Messaging/BinaryMessages/BinaryMessageSerializer.cs:21
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2)tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/BuilderGenerator.cs:48
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2)src/Silverback.Storage.Sqlite/Messaging/Producing/TransactionalOutbox/SqliteOutboxReader.cs:110

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

✓ 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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.8 / 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 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 of 146 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: MqttProducerEndpointConfigurationBuilder (LCOM4 9) · ×2src/Silverback.Integration.MQTT/Messaging/Configuration/Mqtt/MqttProducerEndpointConfigurationBuilder`1.cs:19

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D9 · Test Distribution8.1 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

3112 test methods: 791 unit, 1905 integration, 0 BDD, 416 e2e.

Inverted test pyramid

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Inverted test pyramid finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 skipped (2 with a documented reason), 0 zero-assertion, 19 mock references across 3141 tests.

Mock framework: NSubstitute · ×19
Skipped (documented): Invoke_ShouldSwallowHandlerExceptions · ×2tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/BrokerClientCallbacksInvokerTests.cs:126

✓ 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 3 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); integration: measured (0 flaky); e2e: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene9.1 / 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 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

3 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 1 deprecated, 1 prerelease packages.

Deprecated: xunit
Prerelease dependency: StyleCop.Analyzers
Outdated: NSubstitute · ×3

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D13 · Secret Scanning5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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 5.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 secret(s) detected.

Leaked secret: hardcoded-credentialtestbench/Silverback.TestBench/App.xaml.cs:29

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with App.xaml.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.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 33 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 Factor7.7 / 10Strong✓ 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 7.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

70 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Configuration/Kafka/KafkaClientsConfigurationBuilder.cs.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D17 · Explicit Debt8.1 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

128 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 60442 LoC (0.9/KLoC) → score 8.1.

NoWarnInCsproj · ×7Directory.Packages.props:5
TodoComment · ×15src/Silverback.Core.Rx/Messaging/Subscribers/MessageStreamObservable`1.cs:35
BarePragmaDisable · ×11src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka.Testing/Messaging/Serialization/MockedConfluentSchemaRegistryClient.cs:163
BareSuppressMessage repeated across 54 filessrc/Silverback.Core/AsyncEvent`1.cs:67

What to do

  1. Resolve the 7 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Directory.Packages.props (4), Directory.Build.props (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 15 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ChunkingTests.Batch.cs (5), KafkaTestingHelper.GetProducer.cs (2), MqttTestingHelper.GetProducer.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 11 BarePragmaDisable finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with MockedConfluentSchemaRegistryClient.cs, MqttClientConfigurationTests.cs, MqttHeadersMappingExtensionsTests.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 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 Shape9.9 / 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

43 projects, 1477 source files, 136036 hand-written lines of code (60442 production / 75594 test), 188 inter-project edges.

Monorepo: only 1 of 4 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 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D24 · Comment Value / 10Weak◐ 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 Weak / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 valuable / 1 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commentsrc/Silverback.Core/Util/TaskExtensions.CancelOnExceptionAsync.cs:36

What to do

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

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D26 · Project Cohesion8.4 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 of 43 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split Silverback.Core
Split Silverback.Integration

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Split Silverback.Core finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Split Silverback.Integration finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D27 · Navigability7.3 / 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 7.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

70 % of calls cross a namespace and 8 % go through an interface, but 86 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: large — vertical-slice locality expected.

What to do

  1. Improve Navigability — currently 7.3/10. — 70 % of calls cross a namespace and 8 % go through an interface, but 86 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: large — vertical-slice locality 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)8.4 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

High: dependabot-missing-cooldown.github/dependabot.yml:3detected by semgrep finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with dependabot.yml. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No known-vulnerable NuGet packages (direct or transitive).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (Dockerfile/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

High IaC: DS-0002testbench/Silverback.TestBench.Consumer/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
Low IaC: DS-0026testbench/Silverback.TestBench.Consumer/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

4 of 306 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Silverback.Integration/Messaging/Encryption/SymmetricEncryptStream.cs.

Further orphaned files (smaller)

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

D39 · IL Efficiency9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Method: IL instruction count per method, read from the BUILT first-party assemblies via Mono.Cecil (the target is compiled on a deep run); scored on the fraction of methods whose emitted IL body exceeds the size threshold. Sees compiler-generated bloat source can't; not-applicable when the target fails to build. Deterministic.

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

13 of 3426 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.

IL efficiency: 13 authored method(s) exceed the IL budgettools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/DocumentationProvider.cs:54

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d39_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 dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

AX10 · Code composition4.0 / 10Weak✓ 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 singletons6.1 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

  • `SubscribedMethodsCache` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_subscribedMethods, _hasAnyMessageStreamSubscriber; e.g. `_subscribedMethods` at line 109). — SubscribedMethodsCache.cs:15
  • `ObservableStreamMessageArgumentResolver` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_createObservableMethodInfo; e.g. `_createObservableMethodInfo` at line 51). — ObservableStreamMessageArgumentResolver.cs:17
  • `BrokerClientCallbacksInvoker` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_callbackTypes; e.g. `_callbackTypes` at line 195). — BrokerClientCallbacksInvoker.cs:16
  • `InMemoryMqttBroker` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_sessions; e.g. `_sessions` at line 146). — InMemoryMqttBroker.cs:15

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 segregation9.9 / 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.

  • `IProducer` declares 19 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IProducer.cs:17
  • `IIntegrationPublisher` declares 35 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IIntegrationPublisher.cs:15
  • `ISequence` declares 21 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ISequence.cs:20
  • `ITestingHelper` declares 18 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ITestingHelper`1.cs:9

What to do

  • Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
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.

DM3 · Integration-event coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether cross-context integration events stay loosely coupled — no producer-owned enums/domain types leaking to consumers. Shared-kernel/contracts types are allowed.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): integration-event properties scanned for producer-domain type/enum leaks versus primitives and shared-kernel types. Deterministic, hard fact.

DM5 · Encapsulated state10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state (private/init-only setters) instead of exposing public setters that bypass invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): public setters on entities detected; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary5.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies (EF/Marten/HTTP/ASP.NET) — the clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

  • `EntityFrameworkDomainEventsPublisher` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. — EntityFrameworkDomainEventsPublisher`1.cs:23

What to do

  • Invert domain→infrastructure dependencies: declare interfaces in the domain, implement them in infrastructure (Dependency Inversion).
DM8 · Value-object opportunities10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.

ED1 · Handler temporal coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether event handlers stay asynchronous (no blocking remote HTTP/gRPC calls awaited inside a handler).

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler bodies scanned for HTTP/gRPC invocations by resolved symbol type, not substring. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

ED3 · Event naming7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether events are named in the past tense (a clarity nudge — low weight).

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): domain and integration events checked for past-tense naming (-ed/-en suffix or irregular set). Naming nudge, low-weight advisory.

  • `DomainEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — DomainEvent`1.cs:9
  • `IDomainEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — IDomainEvent.cs:17
  • `IIntegrationCommand` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — IIntegrationCommand.cs:11
  • `IIntegrationEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — IIntegrationEvent.cs:11

What to do

  • Name events in the past tense — they record facts that already happened.
ED4 · Outbox / dual-write10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Event-Driven — Whether state changes and message publishes are atomic (a transactional outbox) rather than a crash-unsafe dual write.

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler methods scanned for DB-save plus bus-publish without a transactional outbox reference. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

  • A test is skipped with reason "TODO: Check why this was the expected behavior" — the behavior it asserts is UNVERIFIED and this skip is likely the only marker of a real bug. It ages invisibly: fix the flakiness or track the bug somewhere that can't be forgotten. (×2) — BrokerClientCallbacksInvokerTests.cs:126, BrokerClientCallbacksInvokerTests.cs:279

What to do

  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • 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 43 of 43 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — 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.

  • 626/888 types (70%) 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 · Observability7.8 / 10Strong✓ 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 11/18 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.
  • Add a health-check endpoint (AddHealthChecks/MapHealthChecks) so orchestrators and load balancers can probe liveness/readiness.
P3 · Security & performance tooling8.0 / 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 & Rollback8.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

What to do

  • Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P5 · DR & Backup4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.

Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.

What to do

  • Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).
  • No persistence guard on critical data stores — use Docker named volumes (or your orchestrator's persistent-volume equivalent) so the data store can't be wiped by a container recreate (or, in cloud, set purge-protection / soft-delete / prevent_destroy).
P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

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 discipline9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

PF2 · Allocation hygiene9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

What to do

  • Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 518 use(s) across 66,713 production line(s) (~7.8/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene5.9 / 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.

  • 5 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock in a consumer with a synchronization context.

What to do

  • Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.
S1 · Web-Security Posture6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.)
  • No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−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.
  • Enforce HTTPS at the app layer (UseHttpsRedirection / UseHsts) — only skip this if a reverse proxy demonstrably terminates TLS.
X1 · Async correctness7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Make the caller `async` and `await` instead. (×4) — TaskExtensions.SafeWait.cs:17, TaskExtensions.SafeWait.cs:26, TaskExtensions.SafeWait.cs:35, …

What to do

  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
X2 · Cancellation propagation7.6 / 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 121/201 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. (×24) — ReturnValueHandlerService.cs:27, SubscribedMethodInvoker.cs:172, AsyncEnumerableForEachExtensions.cs:12, …
  • 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. — BrokerClient.cs:198

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 types9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

  • ~0.2 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

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 Health85%StrongSolid.
Architecture74%StrongSolid.
Maturity74%StrongSolid.
Readiness63%AdequateLargest drag on the score — prioritise here.
Security75%StrongSolid.
Domain Modelling80%StrongSolid.
Event-Driven100%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Performance80%StrongSolid.
Not included — 42 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
  • C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C2 Access Controls — Partial workspace load — the web/host project 'Silverback.TestBench.Consumer' present on disk did not load into the C# workspace (it failed to build/restore and was silently dropped), so its authorization signals were never scanned. The surviving documents carry no evidence for this control, but absence of evidence in an INCOMPLETE document set is not evidence the control is missing — the relevant middleware/attributes most plausibly live in the dropped project. This dimension is therefore Not-evidenced (excluded from the score) rather than asserting a confident negative. Restore/build that project (see diagnostics.md) so it loads and the dimension can be scored.
  • C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • 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.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).
  • 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.
  • 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 — analyzer environment
  • DM1 Aggregate boundaries — no aggregates detected — aggregate-boundary check not applicable
  • DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
  • DM4 Rich vs anemic model — no data-bearing entities detected — rich-vs-anemic model not assessable
  • DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
  • ED2 Event/command shape — no command-shaped messages detected — single-handler-per-command check not applicable
  • 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
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected
  • 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 — 10 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×7
  • NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Packages.props:5 — NU1507
  • NoWarnInCsproj testbench/Directory.Packages.props:5 — NU1507
  • NoWarnInCsproj samples/Directory.Packages.props:5 — NU1507
  • NoWarnInCsproj benchmarks/Directory.Packages.props:5 — NU1507
  • NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props:25 — 1573
  • NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props:25 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props:25 — 1712
D13 · Secret Scanning · Leaked secret · ×1
  • Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential testbench/Silverback.TestBench/App.xaml.cs:29 — hardcoded-credential detected.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · High · ×1
  • High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:3 — This Dependabot configuration does not set a cooldown period. Newly published packages can be malicious or unstable. Add a `cooldown` block with `default-days: 7` to each `package-ecosystem` entry under `updates` to wait 7 days before proposing updates to newly published package versions. Reference: https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/dependabot/dependabot-version-updates/configuration-options-for-the-dependabot.yml-file#cooldown. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule reporting a POLICY that is absent or weaker than its recommendation, not an exploitable defect. Confirm whether the current setting is a deliberate decision for this repository — and apply the change where it is not; where it is (a policy your release process already enforces elsewhere, or one this repository has consciously opted out of), record the decision and leave the configuration as it is.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×1
  • High IaC: DS-0002 testbench/Silverback.TestBench.Consumer/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
Warning — 54 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×15
  • TodoComment src/Silverback.Core.Rx/Messaging/Subscribers/MessageStreamObservable`1.cs:35 — // TODO: Cancellation? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka.Testing/Testing/KafkaTestingHelper.GetProducer.cs:56 — // TODO: Map other settings (e.g. encryption) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Silverback.Integration.MQTT.Testing/Testing/MqttTestingHelper.GetProducer.cs:53 — // TODO: Map other settings (e.g. encryption) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka.Testing/Testing/KafkaTestingHelper.GetProducer.cs:59 — // TODO: Test all cases — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Silverback.Integration.MQTT.Testing/Testing/MqttTestingHelper.GetProducer.cs:85 — // TODO: Test all cases — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E/Kafka/ChunkingTests.Batch.cs:401 — // TODO: Chunking_ShouldAbortSequence_WhenDisconnectingWhileJsonConsumedInBatch() => throw new NotImplementedException(); — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E/Kafka/ChunkingTests.Batch.cs:402 — // TODO: Chunking_ShouldAbortSequence_WhenDisconnectingWhileBinaryMessageConsumedInBatch() => throw new NotImplementedException(); — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E/Kafka/ChunkingTests.Batch.cs:403 — // TODO: Chunking_ShouldAbortSequence_WhenDeserializationFailsWhileJsonConsumedInBatch() (Test different error kinds (deserialization, processing, etc.) -> error mid batch, all sequences aborted and disposed?) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E/Kafka/ChunkingTests.Batch.cs:404 — // TODO: Chunking_ShouldAbortSequence_WhenProcessingFailsWhileJsonConsumedInBatch() (Test different error kinds (deserialization, processing, etc.) -> error mid batch, all sequences aborted and disposed?) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E/Kafka/ChunkingTests.Batch.cs:405 — // TODO: Chunking_ShouldAbortSequence_WhenProcessingFailsWhileBinaryMessageConsumedInBatch() (Test different error kinds (deserialization, processing, etc.) -> error mid batch, all sequences aborted and disposed?) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E/Kafka/ErrorPoliciesTests.cs:16 — // TODO: Test rollback always called with all kind of policies — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E/Mqtt/ErrorPoliciesTests.cs:16 — // TODO: Test rollback always called with all kind of policies — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E/Mqtt/HealthCheckTests.cs:51 — // TODO: Test unhealthy case — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/Silverback.Storage.Memory.Tests/Messaging/Producing/TransactionalOutbox/InMemoryOutboxReaderTests.cs:213 — // TODO: Revert assert to >=100 and figure out why it fails in the pipeline — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/Silverback.Tests.Common/TestingCollection`1.cs:10 — // TODO: Use in E2E tests — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable · ×11
  • BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka.Testing/Messaging/Serialization/MockedConfluentSchemaRegistryClient.cs:163 — #pragma warning disable CS0618 // Type or member is obsolete
  • BarePragmaDisable tests/Silverback.Integration.MQTT.Tests/Messaging/Configuration/Mqtt/MqttClientConfigurationTests.cs:422 — #pragma warning disable CS0618 // Type or member is obsolete
  • BarePragmaDisable tests/Silverback.Integration.MQTT.Tests/Messaging/Messages/MqttHeadersMappingExtensionsTests.cs:10 — #pragma warning disable CS0618 // Type or member is obsolete
  • BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/BrokerStatistics.cs:8 — #pragma warning disable 1591 // Will maybe document later
  • BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/ConsumerGroupStatistics.cs:7 — #pragma warning disable 1591 // Will maybe document later
  • BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/ExactlyOnceSemanticsStatistics.cs:7 — #pragma warning disable 1591 // Will maybe document later
  • BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/KafkaStatistics.cs:8 — #pragma warning disable 1591 // Will maybe document later
  • BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/PartitionStatistics.cs:7 — #pragma warning disable 1591 // Will maybe document later
  • BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/TopicPartitions.cs:7 — #pragma warning disable 1591 // Will maybe document later
  • BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/TopicStatistics.cs:8 — #pragma warning disable 1591 // Will maybe document later
  • BarePragmaDisable src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/Statistics/WindowStatistics.cs:7 — #pragma warning disable 1591 // Will maybe document later
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×8
  • TooManyMethods: KafkaClientsConfigurationBuilder src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Configuration/Kafka/KafkaClientsConfigurationBuilder.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 165 lines, 107 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: KafkaClientConfigurationBuilder src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Configuration/Kafka/KafkaClientConfigurationBuilder`1.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 137 lines, 102 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: SilverbackBuilder src/Silverback.Core/Configuration/SilverbackBuilder.AddSubscriber.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 371 lines, 68 methods, declared across 6 files: Configuration/SilverbackBuilder.AddSubscriber.cs (28), Configuration/SilverbackBuilder.AddDelegateSubscriber.cs (26), Configuration/SilverbackBuilder.AddBehavior.cs (10), Configuration/SilverbackBuilder.HandleMessageOfType.cs (2), +2 more file(s).
  • TooManyMethods: KafkaConsumerConfigurationBuilder src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Configuration/Kafka/KafkaConsumerConfigurationBuilder.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 159 lines, 58 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: MqttClientConfigurationBuilder src/Silverback.Integration.MQTT/Messaging/Configuration/Mqtt/MqttClientConfigurationBuilder.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 278 lines, 54 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: MqttClientsConfigurationBuilder src/Silverback.Integration.MQTT/Messaging/Configuration/Mqtt/MqttClientsConfigurationBuilder.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 167 lines, 45 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: KafkaProducerConfigurationBuilder src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Configuration/Kafka/KafkaProducerConfigurationBuilder.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 107 lines, 37 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: MqttProducerEndpointConfigurationBuilder src/Silverback.Integration.MQTT/Messaging/Configuration/Mqtt/MqttProducerEndpointConfigurationBuilder`1.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 134 lines, 34 methods, declared across 4 files: Mqtt/MqttProducerEndpointConfigurationBuilder`1.CorrelationData.cs (12), Mqtt/MqttProducerEndpointConfigurationBuilder`1.cs (12), Mqtt/MqttProducerEndpointConfigurationBuilder`1.ResponseTopic.cs (6), Mqtt/MqttProducerEndpointConfigurationBuilder`1.QoS.cs (4).
D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×2
  • ClassTooLong: DocumentationProvider tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/DocumentationProvider.cs:0 — ClassTooLong — 625 lines, 6 methods.
  • ClassTooLong: MessageWrapper src/Silverback.Integration/Messaging/Producing/Routing/MessageWrapper.cs:0 — ClassTooLong — 490 lines, 16 methods.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) src/Silverback.Storage.Sqlite/Messaging/Producing/TransactionalOutbox/SqliteOutboxWriter.cs:84 — src/Silverback.Storage.Sqlite/Messaging/Producing/TransactionalOutbox/SqliteOutboxWriter.cs:84-102 | src/Silverback.Storage.PostgreSql/Messaging/Producing/TransactionalOutbox/PostgreSqlOutboxWriter.cs:85-103
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) src/Silverback.Storage.Sqlite/Messaging/Producing/TransactionalOutbox/SqliteOutboxWriter.cs:115 — src/Silverback.Storage.Sqlite/Messaging/Producing/TransactionalOutbox/SqliteOutboxWriter.cs:115-133 | src/Silverback.Storage.PostgreSql/Messaging/Producing/TransactionalOutbox/PostgreSqlOutboxWriter.cs:116-134
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/ParentProxyClassGenerator.cs:28 — tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/ParentProxyClassGenerator.cs:28-39 | tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/SchemaRegistryBuilderGenerator.cs:23-34
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/ProxyClassGenerator.cs:53 — tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/ProxyClassGenerator.cs:53-64 | tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/SchemaRegistryProxyClassGenerator.cs:26-37
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×2
  • Low cohesion: MqttProducerEndpointConfigurationBuilder (LCOM4 9) src/Silverback.Integration.MQTT/Messaging/Configuration/Mqtt/MqttProducerEndpointConfigurationBuilder`1.cs:19 — MqttProducerEndpointConfigurationBuilder's methods form 9 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: KafkaProducerConfigurationBuilder (LCOM4 7) src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Configuration/Kafka/KafkaProducerConfigurationBuilder.cs:15 — KafkaProducerConfigurationBuilder's methods form 7 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×1
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.9.3 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Prerelease dependency · ×1
  • Prerelease dependency: StyleCop.Analyzers — StyleCop.Analyzers resolves to 1.2.0-beta.556, a prerelease build. Prerelease packages carry no support policy, may change breaking between previews and can be unlisted — pin a stable release before shipping, or record the reason this preview is required.
D17 · Explicit Debt · BareSuppressMessage repeated across 54 files · ×1
  • BareSuppressMessage repeated across 54 files src/Silverback.Core/AsyncEvent`1.cs:67 — The identical BareSuppressMessage (`SuppressMessage`) appears in 54 files (95 occurrences) — a single repo-wide policy (e.g. a Directory.Build.props decision or an idiomatic suppression), not 95 independent debts. Decide it once centrally rather than file-by-file. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
D18 · Solution Shape · Monorepo · ×1
  • Monorepo: only 1 of 4 solutions was scored — This repository contains 4 .NET solutions, but a scan analyzes ONE. Every score, lens, and finding here reflects only `Silverback.sln` — the other 3 (`benchmarks/SilverbackBenchmarks.sln`, `samples/Silverback.Samples.sln`, `testbench/Silverback.TestBench.sln`) 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] | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 1175.
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×1
  • FileTooLong: Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/DocumentationProvider.cs tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/DocumentationProvider.cs:0 — FileTooLong — 631 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded).
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) src/Silverback.Integration/Messaging/BinaryMessages/BinaryMessageSerializer.cs:21 — src/Silverback.Integration/Messaging/BinaryMessages/BinaryMessageSerializer.cs:21-31 | src/Silverback.Integration/Messaging/Serialization/JsonMessageSerializer.cs:50-60 | src/Silverback.Integration.Newtonsoft/Messaging/Serialization/NewtonsoftJsonMessageSerializer.cs:62-72
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/BuilderGenerator.cs:48 — tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/BuilderGenerator.cs:48-58 | tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/SchemaRegistryBuilderGenerator.cs:25-35
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Silverback.Storage.Sqlite/Messaging/Producing/TransactionalOutbox/SqliteOutboxReader.cs:110 — src/Silverback.Storage.Sqlite/Messaging/Producing/TransactionalOutbox/SqliteOutboxReader.cs:110-119 | src/Silverback.Storage.PostgreSql/Messaging/Producing/TransactionalOutbox/PostgreSqlOutboxReader.cs:106-115
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/ParentProxyClassGenerator.cs:42 — tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/ParentProxyClassGenerator.cs:42-50 | tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/ProxyClassGenerator.cs:60-68 | tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/SchemaRegistryProxyClassGenerator.cs:33-41
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/ParentBuilderGenerator.cs:154 — tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/ParentBuilderGenerator.cs:154-162 | tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/ParentBuilderGenerator.cs:170-178
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — analyzer environment — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the analyzer environment could not build/run the test suite (a target framework / SDK band or targeting pack the analyzer image doesn't carry). This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. We track the analyzer-image gap so it can be closed; in the meantime, commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces and real coverage will be read.
Recommendation — 11 finding(s)
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 70 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Configuration/Kafka/KafkaClientsConfigurationBuilder.cs, tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/DocumentationProvider.cs, src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Configuration/Kafka/KafkaClientConfigurationBuilder`1.cs, src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Configuration/Kafka/KafkaConsumerConfigurationBuilder.cs, src/Silverback.Integration.MQTT/Messaging/Configuration/Mqtt/MqttClientsConfigurationBuilder.cs, src/Silverback.Integration/Messaging/Producing/Routing/MessageWrapper.cs, src/Silverback.Integration/Diagnostics/IntegrationLoggerExtensions.cs, src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Configuration/Kafka/KafkaProducerConfigurationBuilder.cs (+62 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D18 · Solution Shape · Thin analysable surface across projects · ×1
  • Thin analysable surface across projects — 2 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `Silverback.Tools.Generators.Docs.Headers` with 37 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 99 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 0.1 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.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — At 60k LoC across 43 projects the codebase is both large and multi-module, so its structure warrants explicit bounded-context boundaries. 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"]`.
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1
  • redundant comment src/Silverback.Core/Util/TaskExtensions.CancelOnExceptionAsync.cs:36 — "Ignore" — delete - generated stub marker restating no action
D26 · Project Cohesion · Split Silverback.Core · ×1
  • Split Silverback.Core — Generic catch-all name that is large and sprawls over 15 unrelated namespaces. Suggested: by namespace: Silverback.Caching, Silverback.Serialization
D26 · Project Cohesion · Split Silverback.Integration · ×1
  • Split Silverback.Integration — Catch-all integration project at 22k LoC across 32 namespaces is a sprawling grab-bag. Suggested: by namespace: Silverback.Messaging, Silverback.Authentication
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×1
  • Low IaC: DS-0026 testbench/Silverback.TestBench.Consumer/Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1
  • Further orphaned files (smaller) — 4 of 306 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it. None is large enough to schedule a dedicated read-through on its own, so they are folded into the freshness score rather than raised individually — largest first: src/Silverback.Integration/Messaging/Encryption/SymmetricEncryptStream.cs, src/Silverback.Integration/Messaging/Encryption/SymmetricDecryptStream.cs, src/Silverback.Integration.Kafka/Messaging/Messages/KafkaMessageHeaders.cs (and 1 more).
D39 · IL Efficiency · IL efficiency · ×1
  • IL efficiency: 13 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/DocumentationProvider.cs:54 — 13 of 3426 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (> 250 instructions); worst: Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies.DocumentationProvider.AppendSummaryForClientConfig @ tools/Silverback.Tools.Generators.KafkaConfigProxies/DocumentationProvider.cs:54, 1539 IL instructions; large bodies don't JIT-inline, which pulled this dimension to 9.9/10; splitting the hottest bodies recovers the most.
D9 · Test Distribution · Inverted test pyramid · ×1
  • Inverted test pyramid — Only 25 % of tests are unit tests (791 unit vs 1905 integration, 0 BDD); a broader unit base gives faster, more localised feedback.
Info — 25 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×19
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Core.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Core.Model.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Integration.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Integration.Kafka.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Tests.Common references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Integration.Newtonsoft.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Tests.Common.Integration references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Integration.Kafka.SchemaRegistry.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Integration.MQTT.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Integration.HealthChecks.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Integration.Kafka.Testing.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Integration.MQTT.Testing.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Storage.Memory.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Storage.Sqlite.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Storage.PostgreSql.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Storage.EntityFramework.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Integration.Testing.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Silverback.Storage.Relational.Tests references NSubstitute.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×3
  • Outdated: NSubstitute — NSubstitute 5.3.0 → 6.0.0 available (referenced by Silverback.Core.Tests).
  • Outdated: SharpCompress — SharpCompress 0.50.0 → 0.50.1 available (referenced by Silverback.Integration.Tests.E2E).
  • Outdated: SQLitePCLRaw.bundle_e_sqlite3 — SQLitePCLRaw.bundle_e_sqlite3 2.1.12 → 3.0.5 available (referenced by Silverback.Storage.Sqlite).
D10 · Test Quality · Skipped (documented) · ×2
  • Skipped (documented): Invoke_ShouldSwallowHandlerExceptions tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/BrokerClientCallbacksInvokerTests.cs:126 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: TODO: Check why this was the expected behavior
  • Skipped (documented): InvokeAsync_ShouldSwallowHandlerExceptions tests/Silverback.Integration.Tests/Messaging/Broker/Callbacks/BrokerClientCallbacksInvokerTests.cs:279 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: TODO: Check why this was the expected behavior
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaksgitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrepsemgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .1artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnetdotnet list Silverback.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json0artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivytrivy config --format json --quiet .2artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
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
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenanceprovenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).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 019faf6a-83e1-729e-90d9-febf333e3939 · 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