Public report — CrispyCollab, published 29 Jun 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdogby Canine Development 29-06-2026 @ 22:20 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

DavidEggenberger/CrispyCollab

No regression
41% Weak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
middle
Event-Driven 100% Exemplary Architecture 69% Adequate Security 69% Adequate Code Health 56% Adequate Maturity 47% Weak Readiness 37% Weak Accessibility 33% Weak

Small · 5,126 LoC · 18 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Accessibility (33%)

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

69/72dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
44findings with an exact file:lineof 58 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
72/97dimensions across the health lenses5126 LoC · 18 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.

DavidEggenberger/CrispyCollab carries serious risk (41%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

It is strongest in Event-Driven (100%) — its messaging keeps components properly decoupled.

The area that most needs attention is Accessibility (33%) — it raises ongoing delivery and operational cost. Readiness (37%) is the next concern — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative… (Text alternatives); Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> /… (Forms & labels); Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler) (Keyboard semantics).

For scale: Small (~5,126 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Event-Driven foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 56% Adequate · gated by X3, IC1 Architecture 69% Adequate · gated by AX7 Maturity 47% Weak · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 37% Weak · gated by D8, D10, P3, P5, P7 Security 69% Adequate Event-Driven 100% ★ Exemplary Accessibility 33% Weak · gated by AC1, AC2, AC4
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.
Accessibility 33% · 46% weightReadiness 37% · 25% weightMaturity 47% · 14% weightCode Health 56% · 8% weightSecurity 69% · 4% weightArchitecture 69% · 2% weightEvent-Driven 100% · 1% weight

Raise Accessibility 33 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 41 → ~47.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 7%Plumbing 86%Tests 0%Generated 7%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,600–€7,700
Cost to rebuild€1,600–€7,700 (0.1 person-years (27–81 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityHigh — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 41% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 56% boilerplate · 37% straight-line · 8% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€4,700 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Accessibility at 33% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain High (×1.7) — service/app, DDD/clean architecture, CQRS, event-driven integration × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 2 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ChannelTests.cs, Tests.cs.
+3.7 pts · Low effort · Test Quality
2
Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, and a captions <track> on video.
+7.0 pts · Medium effort · Text alternatives
3
Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
+7.0 pts · Medium effort · Forms & labels

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Accessibility at 33%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (5,126 LoC) · weakest lens: Accessibility 33%
→ Direct remediation budget at Accessibility first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Root cause: tests don't protect the risk · High · Root cause
Coverage is low and what exists is mis-aimed (concentrated on the trivial layer and/or weak on assertions) — the test suite isn't protecting the code that actually carries risk. More of the same tests won't help; the gap is WHERE and HOW you test.
Evidence: D8 coverage: 1.0/10 · D10 test quality: weak assertions
→ Shift testing onto the domain/decision logic; gate on domain coverage, not overall %.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, and a captions <track> on video. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, and a captions <track> on video.
Improving trajectory · Info · Trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+9.4 pts/run over 5 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Evidence: trajectory: +9.4 pts/run over 5 runs

Trajectory

Where this codebase is heading — something a one-shot snapshot cannot show. 41 ▲ 2 over 5 runs.

025507510029 Junnow
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurityEvent-DrivenAccessibility

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 Client Client ctx:Channels.Public Channels.Public Public Client->ctx:Channels.Public ctx:Channels.Web Channels.Web Client · Server Client->ctx:Channels.Web ctx:TenantIdentity.Web TenantIdentity.Web Client · Server Client->ctx:TenantIdentity.Web ctx:Kernel Kernel Kernel Client->ctx:Kernel Server Server Server->ctx:Channels.Web ctx:LandingPages LandingPages Server Server->ctx:LandingPages ctx:Subscriptions.Web Subscriptions.Web Client · Server Server->ctx:Subscriptions.Web Server->ctx:TenantIdentity.Web ctx:Features Features Features Server->ctx:Features ctx:Channels.Features Channels.Features Features ctx:Channels.Features->ctx:Features ctx:Channels.Web->ctx:Channels.Features ctx:Channels.Web->ctx:Channels.Public ctx:Shared Shared Client ctx:Channels.Web->ctx:Shared ctx:Channels.Web->ctx:Features ctx:Channels.Web->ctx:Kernel ctx:LandingPages->ctx:Features ctx:Subscriptions.Features Subscriptions.Features Features ctx:Subscriptions.Public Subscriptions.Public Public ctx:Subscriptions.Features->ctx:Subscriptions.Public ctx:TenantIdentity.Public TenantIdentity.Public Public ctx:Subscriptions.Features->ctx:TenantIdentity.Public ctx:Subscriptions.Features->ctx:Features ctx:Subscriptions.Public->ctx:Kernel ctx:Subscriptions.Web->ctx:Subscriptions.Features ctx:TenantIdentity.Features TenantIdentity.Features Features ctx:TenantIdentity.Features->ctx:Subscriptions.Public ctx:TenantIdentity.Features->ctx:TenantIdentity.Public ctx:TenantIdentity.Features->ctx:Features ctx:TenantIdentity.Public->ctx:Kernel ctx:TenantIdentity.Web->ctx:TenantIdentity.Features ctx:TenantIdentity.Web->ctx:Features ctx:Shared->ctx:TenantIdentity.Public ctx:Shared->ctx:Kernel ctx:Features->ctx:Kernel __more__ +1 more contexts

At a glance — Code Health · 56% · Adequate · gated by X3, IC1

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 10.0 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 10.0 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 7.8 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 8.0 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 9.9 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 8.1
The Bad
X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 6.5
The Ugly
IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 2.5 X3 · Repo Exception handling 3.5

At a glance — Architecture · 69% · Adequate · gated by AX7

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 9.1 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D23 · .NET / C# Boundary Type-Coupling 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0
The Bad
AX10 · Repo Code composition 5.3
The Ugly
AX7 · Repo Slice cohesion 2.0

At a glance — Maturity · 47% · Weak · gated by D34, M2

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.3 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 7.0
The Bad
D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 6.2 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 6.0
The Ugly
D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 4.0 D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 4.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 37% · Weak · gated by D8, D10, P3, P5, P7

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 9.1 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0
The Bad
P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0
The Ugly
D8 · .NET / C# Code Coverage 1.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 2.5 P2 · Repo Observability 4.5 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 3.0 P5 · Repo DR & Backup 0.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0

At a glance — Security · 69% · Adequate

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D31 · .NET / C# IaC & Container Security 9.6 C2 · Repo Access Controls 10.0 C3 · Repo Audit Trail 7.5 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 10.0
The Bad
C1 · Repo Data Protection 5.0 C4 · Repo Data Retention 5.0

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

The Good
ED1 · Repo Handler temporal coupling 10.0 ED3 · Repo Event naming 10.0 ED4 · Repo Outbox / dual-write 10.0

At a glance — Accessibility · 33% · Weak · gated by AC1, AC2, AC4

The Good
AC5 · Repo ARIA correctness 10.0 AC6 · Repo Visual & motion safety 10.0
The Bad
AC3 · Repo Page structure 6.1
The Ugly
AC1 · Repo Text alternatives 1.5 AC2 · Repo Forms & labels 3.0 AC4 · Repo Keyboard semantics 1.0 AC7 · Repo A11y enforcement 4.0

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

Roadmap

First, add text alternatives for all images, SVGs, and videos to ensure media is accessible. Next, provide programmatic labels for all form controls and buttons, and make custom interactive elements keyboard-operable with proper semantic markup. Then, enforce accessibility standards in the development toolchain by integrating automated testing and CI gates. Finally, correct page structure by adding language attributes, titles, and landmarks, while ensuring proper heading order and disabling meta-refresh.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 2 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ChannelTests.cs, Tests.cs.+3.7 ptsLowTest Quality
Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, and a captions <track> on video.+7.0 ptsMediumText alternatives
Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.+7.0 ptsMediumForms & labels
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.+7.0 ptsMediumKeyboard semantics
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.+6.8 ptsMediumA11y enforcement
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.+6.4 ptsMediumPage structure
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.+5.5 ptsMediumDR & Backup
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.+5.5 ptsMediumOutbound HTTP resilience

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 16 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 50% mixed · 50% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
Source/Web/Client/Pages/Topic.razor.cs6.4MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Source/Shared/Kernel/BuildingBlocks/Services/Http/HttpClientService.cs6.4MixedExplicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
Source/Web/Server/Dockerfile6.5MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
Source/Modules/LandingPages/Web/Server/LandingPagesLayout.razor.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Source/Modules/LandingPages/Web/Server/Pages/LandingPage.razor.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Source/Web/Client/Pages/Channels.razor.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Source/Web/Server/BuildingBlocks/ExceptionHandling/ExceptionHandler.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: Dead code: HandleNotFoundException
Source/Web/Client/BuildingBlocks/Auth/HostAuthenticationStateProvider.cs7.6MixedExplicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
Tests/ArchitectureTests/Tests.cs8.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions (empty test): Test1
Source/Modules/Channels/Tests/Domain/ChannelTests.cs8.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions (empty test): Test1
Source/Modules/Channels/Web/Client/Components/ChannelComponent.razor.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Source/Modules/Channels/Web/Server/Controllers/ChannelsController.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Source/Modules/LandingPages/Web/Server/Pages/PricingPage.razor.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Source/Shared/Kernel/BuildingBlocks/Auth/Services/ITenantAuthorizationService.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: ITenantAuthorizationService
Source/Shared/Kernel/Extensions/ClaimsPrincipal/Exceptions/UserIdClaimNotFoundException.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: UserIdClaimNotFoundException
Source/Modules/TenantIdentity/Web/Client/Modules.TenantIdentity.Web.Client.csproj9.5Near-cleanSolution Shape: Shell project: Modules.TenantIdentity.Web.Client

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. 69 of 72 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 — 72 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D23D24D26D28D29D31D34D35AC1AC2AC3AC4AC5AC6AC7AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX7AX8AX9C1C2C3C4ED1ED3ED4ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P5P7P8S1X1X2X3X4X5

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, 44 of 58 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 coverage10.0.301✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.301✓ 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 019f1578-ac37-74fb-930f-0e9807e283fe.

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.

  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

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 (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
  • 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 (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • 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.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling: Boundary leakage is detected from type references across detected contexts — leaks that flow through primitives, serialization or shared infrastructure may not surface as a typed reference.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
  • AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A clean result is "no unlabelled native control found", not a labelling proof.
  • AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
  • C3 Audit Trail: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — a working control configured outside the repository leaves no signal a static scan can credit.
  • C4 Data Retention: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — its real-world effectiveness, exercised only at runtime, is outside a static scan.
  • ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (6): D19, D20, D21, D24, ED5, 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · 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 Classes10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

D4 · Code Duplication10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 duplicated block group(s) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md.

D5 · Coupling9.1 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: Modules.Channels.Public · ×3

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 18 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

D8 · Code Coverage1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How much of the code is actually exercised by tests.

Method: Coverage from coverlet runs or committed reports (Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov), computed per-file with structured exclusions for generated, trivial, and glue code. When the suite can't be built/run in-image AND no report is committed, coverage is reported NOT-MEASURED (excluded from the score) with the precondition to make it measurable — never a LoC-ratio proxy folded in as if measured. Deterministic.

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

Line coverage 0.0%, branch coverage 0.0%.

What to do

  1. Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

1 test methods: 1 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality2.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 skipped, 2 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 2 tests.

No assertions (empty test): Test1 · ×2Tests/ArchitectureTests/Tests.cs:5

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ChannelTests.cs, Tests.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 of 51 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor6.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

7 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is Source/Modules/TenantIdentity/Web/Server/Controllers/TenantsController.cs.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

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).
  2. Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) 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 Debt7.8 / 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

15 deducted debt markers + 6 dead symbols across 4940 LoC (1.1/KLoC) → score 7.8.

EmptyCatchBlock · ×3Source/Shared/Kernel/BuildingBlocks/Services/Http/HttpClientService.cs:25
CommentedOutCode · ×12Source/Modules/Channels/Web/Client/Components/ChannelComponent.razor.cs:11
Dead code: ITenantAuthorizationService · ×6Source/Shared/Kernel/BuildingBlocks/Auth/Services/ITenantAuthorizationService.cs:3

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with HttpClientService.cs (2), HostAuthenticationStateProvider.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 12 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with LandingPage.razor.cs (3), Topic.razor.cs (3), LandingPagesLayout.razor.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 6 Dead code finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ExceptionHandler.cs (2), Channels.razor.cs, ITenantAuthorizationService.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 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 Shape8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

18 projects, 213 .cs files, 4951 hand-written lines of code (4940 production / 11 test), plus 360 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 32 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).

Shell project: Modules.TenantIdentity.Web.ClientSource/Modules/TenantIdentity/Web/Client/Modules.TenantIdentity.Web.Client.csproj
Thin analysable surface across projects
Build status unknown

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with Modules.TenantIdentity.Web.Client.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Thin analysable surface across projects finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

CrispyCollab's documentation is a single README with an architecture link to the ModularMonolith.SaaS.Template repo but no self-contained architecture or usage docs. The Running and Using CrispyCollab section covers TailwindCSS setup (npm install + tailwindcss init/watch), Docker infrastructure, and EF Core migration commands for SQL Server; it also links out to Stripe Checkout for billing. However the README is thin on any further content: no overview of features beyond the list, no architecture docs, no client-side usage, no API docs, and no coverage of the 95 modules documented in the XML doc set (0/95).

XML-doc coverage: Shared.Kernel · ×17Source/Shared/Kernel/Shared.Kernel.csproj

What to do

  1. Improve Documentation Quality — currently 4.0/10. — CrispyCollab's documentation is a single README with an architecture link to the ModularMonolith.SaaS.Template repo but no self-contained architecture or usage docs. The Running and Using CrispyCollab section covers TailwindCSS setup (npm install + tailwindcss init/watch), Docker infrastructure, and EF Core migration commands for SQL Server; it also links out to Stripe Checkout for billing. However the README is thin on any further content: no overview of features beyond the list, no architecture docs, no client-side usage, no API docs, and no coverage of the 95 modules documented in the XML doc set (0/95).

Detailed fixes: d19_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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · 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 / 10Adequate◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

4 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

Typo in class name: 'RemoveUserFromTenantommandHandler' contains a typo ('ommand' instead of 'Command').
Typo in namespace: 'Aplication' is misspelled (should be 'Application').
Inconsistent casing in query names: 'GetTenantByID' uses uppercase 'ID' while 'GetTenantByIdQueryHandler' uses lowercase 'Id'.
Inconsistent namespace structure: 'StripeCustomers' is under 'DomainFeatures' but 'StripeSubscriptionPlan' is also under 'DomainFeatures', yet the typo 'Aplication' exists in one namespace path.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Typo in class name finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Typo in namespace finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Inconsistent casing in query names finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether domain types (IDs, enums, value objects) leak across bounded-context boundaries.

Method: Cross-context domain-type leakage via Roslyn structural classification (strongly-typed IDs / value objects) over every public surface. Exhaustive, deterministic, type-level aggregate-boundary check.

Coverage: Bounded contexts derived from NAMESPACE prefix (or graph-inferred where available); cross-boundary domain-type leakage then checked exhaustively over every public member of every type.

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

No domain types leak across context boundaries (6 contexts).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d23_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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Weak / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

12 valuable / 1 redundant across 120 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commentSource/Web/Client/Pages/Topic.razor.cs:15

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Topic.razor.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 Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 of 18 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep --config auto across the repo; severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a 0-10 wide normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

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

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

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

High IaC: DS-0002Source/Web/Server/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
Low IaC: DS-0026Source/Web/Server/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 Freshness0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

18 of 18 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is Source/Modules/TenantIdentity/Web/Server/TenantIdentityModuleStartup.cs.

Further orphaned files (smaller)

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · 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.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC1 · Text alternatives1.5 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether non-text content carries a text alternative — img/area/input[type=image] have alt, a meaningful svg has a title or aria-label, video has a captions track, and object/embed/canvas have a name or fallback content. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: every img/area/input[type=image] checked for alt, svg[role=img] for a title/aria-label, video for a captions <track>. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

  • An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative. (×9) — AboutPage.razor:37, AboutPage.razor:43, AboutPage.razor:47, …

What to do

  • Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, and a captions <track> on video.
AC2 · Forms & labels3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.

  • A link with no text, aria-label or labelled child (e.g. an icon-only link) has no accessible name, so assistive tech can't say where it goes. Add visible text or an aria-label. (×3) — LandingPagesLayout.razor:6, LandingPagesLayout.razor:12, MainLayout.razor:14

What to do

  • Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
AC3 · Page structure6.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.

  • Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one. — AboutPage.razor:7
  • A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>. — _Host.cshtml:0

What to do

  • Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
AC4 · Keyboard semantics1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor, no placeholder-href (#/javascript) link acting as a button. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

  • A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler. (×3) — LoginDisplayComponent.razor:4, ProfileComponent.razor:9, ProfileComponent.razor:11

What to do

  • Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
AC5 · ARIA correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.

AC6 · Visual & motion safety10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.

AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) configured, and axe/pa11y/Lighthouse wired into tests or CI — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.

Method: Repo config/CI scan: an a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) configured, and axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI, graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.

  • No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time.

What to do

  • Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
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 composition5.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified.

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

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

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.

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

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

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

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

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

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface member counts; fat-interface threshold (over 15 members) flagged per type. Deterministic, type-level.

AX7 · Slice cohesion2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether feature slices stay independent (no direct cross-slice references) — the discipline that makes vertical-slice architecture pay off.

Method: Roslyn scan (vertical-slice gated): feature slices resolved from namespaces (.Features.*, .Slices.*) or project names; cross-slice type references detected. Deterministic, traceable.

  • `BaseController` (slice 'Server') depends on `ICommandDispatcher` from slice 'Messaging'. — BaseController.cs:21
  • `ServerExecutionBase` (slice 'Server') depends on `ICommandDispatcher` from slice 'Messaging'. — ServerExecutionBase.cs:21
  • `ClaimsForUserQueryHandler` (slice 'DomainFeatures') depends on `TenantIdentityDbContext` from slice 'Infrastructure'. — GetClaimsForUser.cs:18
  • `GetStripeCustomerByStripePortalIdQueryHandler` (slice 'DomainFeatures') depends on `SubscriptionsDbContext` from slice 'Infrastructure'. — GetStripeCustomerByStripePortalId.cs:12
  • `AddMessageToChannelCommandHandler` (slice 'DomainFeatures') depends on `ChannelsDbContext` from slice 'Infrastructure'. — AddMessageToChannel.cs:12
  • `ChangeChannelNameCommandHandler` (slice 'DomainFeatures') depends on `ChannelsDbContext` from slice 'Infrastructure'. — ChangeChannelName.cs:12
  • `CreateChannelCommandHandler` (slice 'DomainFeatures') depends on `ChannelsDbContext` from slice 'Infrastructure'. — CreateChannel.cs:11
  • `DeleteMessageFromChannelCommandHandler` (slice 'DomainFeatures') depends on `ChannelsDbContext` from slice 'Infrastructure'. — DeleteMessageFromChannel.cs:12

What to do

  • Keep slices independent: share cross-slice needs via an explicit contract/shared-kernel, not direct references between slices.
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

C1 · Data Protection5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
C2 · Access Controls10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — [Authorize]/policies or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

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

C3 · Audit Trail7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether changes to sensitive data are recorded (who, what, when) for compliance + incident response.

Method: Roslyn scan: audit-trail mechanism graded (SaveChanges interceptor/immutable AuditLog/[Audited] strong; bare IAuditable/AddAuditing weak). Deterministic.

  • An audit mechanism is present, but the trail is not yet complete — missing: an immutable audit-log / audit-trail type to write to, [Audited] per-entity coverage.

What to do

  • Back the audit convention with a structural mechanism: an EF SaveChanges interceptor (or equivalent) writing every sensitive change to an immutable audit log, and apply [Audited] to the entities that need a who-changed-what trail.
C4 · Data Retention5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether data has a defined lifetime — retention periods, TTLs, cleanup jobs (storage limitation).

Method: Roslyn scan: retention/TTL configuration presence in schema; CascadeDelete detected but not scored as retention control. Deterministic, gated by PII presence.

  • A retention mechanism is present, but the data-lifecycle is not yet complete — missing: a TTL / index expiry (TimeToLive / ExpireAfter / TtlIndex), a scheduled purge / cleanup job (PurgeOlderThan / CleanupJob).

What to do

  • Complete the data-lifecycle story: a TTL/index expiry, a scheduled purge/cleanup job, and a documented retention period covering the personal data.
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 naming10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

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.

ED5 · Idempotency9.1 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

  • `Commands.CreateTrialingSubscriptionCommandHandler.HandleAsync` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — CreateTrialingSubscription.cs:20
  • `Commands.AddMessageToChannelCommandHandler.HandleAsync` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — AddMessageToChannel.cs:19

What to do

  • Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • A placeholder string ("https://example.com/terms") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — Registrator.cs:19
  • A placeholder string ("https://example.com/contact") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — Registrator.cs:23
  • A placeholder string ("https://example.com/license") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — Registrator.cs:28
  • A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×3) — GetAllChannels.cs:18, GetAllMessagesForChannel.cs:18, GetChannelById.cs:18

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs2.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

  • `HandleAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×3) — GetAllChannels.cs:16, GetAllMessagesForChannel.cs:16, GetChannelById.cs:16
  • `OnInitializedAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. (×3) — ChannelComponent.razor.cs:9, LandingPage.razor.cs:26, Topic.razor.cs:13
  • `DeleteChannel` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — ChannelComponent.razor.cs:21
  • `Configure` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. (×6) — ChannelsModuleStartup.cs:23, LandingPagesModuleStartup.cs:19, SubscriptionsModuleStartup.cs:26, …
  • `CreateChannel` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — ChannelsController.cs:34
  • `UpdateChannel` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — ChannelsController.cs:41
  • `OnParametersSetAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — LandingPage.razor.cs:37
  • `HandleAsync` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — UserUpdatedIntegrationEventHandler.cs:8
  • `HandleAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — GetTenantMembershipQuery.cs:20
  • `AddDbUpMigration` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — Registrator.cs:12
  • `SendMessage` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — Channels.razor.cs:43
  • `HandleNotFoundException` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — ExceptionHandler.cs:46
  • `HandleUnauthorizedException` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — ExceptionHandler.cs:55
  • `HandleUnknownExceptionAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — ExceptionHandler.cs:64
  • `Main` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — Program.cs:13
  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×6) — DeleteChannel.cs:21, ChannelComponent.razor.cs:16, CreateChannelModal.razor.cs:11, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)7.3 / 10Strong✓ 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 a README to the 18 of 18 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
  • No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.

What to do

  • Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
  • Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
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 accuracy7.0 / 10Strong◐ 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.

  • Blazor WebAssembly client project named Modules.Channels.Web.Client exists but the README omits it
  • EFCoreConfiguration secrets.json claim is present in the evidence (it shows) and the README describes it; no drift on this

What to do

  • Reconcile the README with reality: Blazor WebAssembly client project named Modules.Channels.Web.Client exists but the README omits it; EFCoreConfiguration secrets.json claim is present in the evidence (it shows) and the README describes it; no drift on this.
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.

P2 · Observability4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 2/13 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).

What to do

  • Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: CodeQL, Dependabot, secret-scanning, and BenchmarkDotNet presence in pipelines and projects. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.

What to do

  • Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

What to do

  • Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
  • Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P5 · DR & Backup0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

  • A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.

What to do

  • Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn scan: Polly resilience markers (Retry, CircuitBreaker, Timeout) on outbound HTTP invocations. Computed per type, deterministic.

  • The app makes outbound HTTP calls but no resilience handler was detected (Polly / AddStandardResilienceHandler / circuit-breaker). A slow or failing dependency will cascade — add timeouts, retries with back-off, and a circuit breaker.

What to do

  • Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.
P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

S1 · Web-Security Posture10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X2 · Cancellation propagation6.5 / 10Adequate✓ 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 32/77 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×25) — HttpClientService.cs:16, HttpClientService.cs:38, HttpClientService.cs:60, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 · Exception handling3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×3) — HttpClientService.cs:25, HttpClientService.cs:47, HostAuthenticationStateProvider.cs:70

What to do

  • Swallowed exception (empty catch)
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 types8.1 / 10Strong✓ 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.

  • 13/17 projects enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable>. NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

What to do

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

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 15 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (27%; ≈30% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 40 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

DimensionWCAG 2.2 A/AA criteriaCoverage
AC1 · Text alternatives1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.5Partial signal
AC2 · Forms & labels1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2Partial signal
AC3 · Page structure1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2Partial signal
AC4 · Keyboard semantics2.1.1, 2.4.3Partial signal
AC5 · ARIA correctness4.1.2Partial signal
AC6 · Visual & motion safety1.4.3, 2.4.7Partial — literal CSS only
AC7 · A11y enforcementenforcement — no page criterionEnforcement posture (process)

Not statically assessed — these 40 Level A/AA criteria need runtime or manual evaluation (WCAG-EM): 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.11, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.1.3.

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 Health56%Adequate — gated by X3, IC1Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture69%Adequate — gated by AX7Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity47%Weak — gated by D34, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness37%Weak — gated by D8, D10, P3, P5, P7Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security69%AdequateAcceptable, with room to improve.
Event-Driven100%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Accessibility33%Weak — gated by AC1, AC2, AC4Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 26 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.

  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • 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, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — only 1/3 markers (a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer)
  • ED2 Event/command shape — no command-shaped messages detected — single-handler-per-command check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
  • P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
  • X8 JS interop contract — 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 — 6 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×3
  • EmptyCatchBlock Source/Shared/Kernel/BuildingBlocks/Services/Http/HttpClientService.cs:25 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock Source/Shared/Kernel/BuildingBlocks/Services/Http/HttpClientService.cs:47 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock Source/Web/Client/BuildingBlocks/Auth/HostAuthenticationStateProvider.cs:70 — empty catch block
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions (empty test) · ×2
  • No assertions (empty test): Test1 Tests/ArchitectureTests/Tests.cs:5 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
  • No assertions (empty test): Test1 Source/Modules/Channels/Tests/Domain/ChannelTests.cs:5 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×1
  • High IaC: DS-0002 Source/Web/Server/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
Warning — 21 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×12
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Modules/Channels/Web/Client/Components/ChannelComponent.razor.cs:11 — 8 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Modules/Channels/Web/Server/Controllers/ChannelsController.cs:50 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Web/Client/Pages/Channels.razor.cs:13 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Modules/LandingPages/Web/Server/LandingPagesLayout.razor.cs:24 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Modules/LandingPages/Web/Server/LandingPagesLayout.razor.cs:34 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Modules/LandingPages/Web/Server/Pages/LandingPage.razor.cs:39 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Modules/LandingPages/Web/Server/Pages/LandingPage.razor.cs:44 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Modules/LandingPages/Web/Server/Pages/LandingPage.razor.cs:69 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Modules/LandingPages/Web/Server/Pages/PricingPage.razor.cs:18 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Web/Client/Pages/Topic.razor.cs:54 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Web/Client/Pages/Topic.razor.cs:15 — 16 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Web/Client/Pages/Topic.razor.cs:39 — 14 consecutive commented-code lines
D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×6
  • Dead code: ITenantAuthorizationService Source/Shared/Kernel/BuildingBlocks/Auth/Services/ITenantAuthorizationService.cs:3 — NamedType ITenantAuthorizationService — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: UserIdClaimNotFoundException Source/Shared/Kernel/Extensions/ClaimsPrincipal/Exceptions/UserIdClaimNotFoundException.cs:3 — NamedType UserIdClaimNotFoundException — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: HandleNotFoundException Source/Web/Server/BuildingBlocks/ExceptionHandling/ExceptionHandler.cs:46 — Method HandleNotFoundException — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: HandleUnauthorizedException Source/Web/Server/BuildingBlocks/ExceptionHandling/ExceptionHandler.cs:55 — Method HandleUnauthorizedException — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: SendMessage Source/Web/Client/Pages/Channels.razor.cs:43 — Method SendMessage — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: ToggleNavMenu Source/Modules/LandingPages/Web/Server/LandingPagesLayout.razor.cs:17 — Method ToggleNavMenu — no references found in solution.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×3
  • Off the main sequence: Modules.Channels.Public — Modules.Channels.Public: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Modules.TenantIdentity.Public — Modules.TenantIdentity.Public: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.25, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Shared.Kernel — Shared.Kernel: abstractness 0.27, instability 0.00, distance 0.73 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
Recommendation — 12 finding(s)
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 6 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner (largest: Source/Modules/TenantIdentity/Web/Server/Controllers/TenantsController.cs). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D16 · Bus Factor · Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1
  • Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 1 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (7 single-owned of 18 analysed files in total).
D18 · Solution Shape · Shell project · ×1
  • Shell project: Modules.TenantIdentity.Web.Client Source/Modules/TenantIdentity/Web/Client/Modules.TenantIdentity.Web.Client.csproj — `Modules.TenantIdentity.Web.Client` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
D18 · Solution Shape · Thin analysable surface across projects · ×1
  • Thin analysable surface across projects — 4 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `Modules.Subscriptions.Public` with 10 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 75 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 2.0 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D21 · Naming Consistency · Typo in class name · ×1
  • Typo in class name: 'RemoveUserFromTenantommandHandler' contains a typo ('ommand' instead of 'Command'). — Rename to 'RemoveUserFromTenantCommandHandler' to match the command 'RemoveUserFromTenant' and standard naming conventions. (symbols: Modules.TenantIdentity.Features.DomainFeatures.Tenants.Application.Commands.RemoveUserFromTenantommandHandler.HandleAsync, Modules.TenantIdentity.Features.DomainFeatures.Tenants.Application.Commands.RemoveUserFromTenant)
D21 · Naming Consistency · Typo in namespace · ×1
  • Typo in namespace: 'Aplication' is misspelled (should be 'Application'). — Rename namespace to 'Modules.Subscriptions.Features.DomainFeatures.StripeCustomers.Application.Queries'. (symbols: Modules.Subscriptions.Features.DomainFeatures.StripeCustomers.Aplication.Queries.GetStripeCustomerByStripePortalId, Modules.Subscriptions.Features.DomainFeatures.StripeCustomers.Aplication.Queries.GetStripeCustomerByStripePortalId)
D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent casing in query names · ×1
  • Inconsistent casing in query names: 'GetTenantByID' uses uppercase 'ID' while 'GetTenantByIdQueryHandler' uses lowercase 'Id'. — Standardize to 'GetTenantById' (lowercase 'Id') to match the handler and general C# conventions. (symbols: Modules.TenantIdentity.Features.DomainFeatures.Tenants.Application.Queries.GetTenantByID, Modules.TenantIdentity.Features.DomainFeatures.Tenants.Application.Queries.GetTenantByIdQueryHandler)
D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent namespace structure · ×1
  • Inconsistent namespace structure: 'StripeCustomers' is under 'DomainFeatures' but 'StripeSubscriptionPlan' is also under 'DomainFeatures', yet the typo 'Aplication' exists in one namespace path. — Ensure all namespaces use 'Application' instead of 'Aplication' and maintain consistent folder/namespace structure. (symbols: Modules.Subscriptions.Features.DomainFeatures.StripeCustomers.Aplication.Queries.GetStripeCustomerByStripePortalId, Modules.Subscriptions.Features.DomainFeatures.StripeSubscriptions.StripeSubscriptionPlan)
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1
  • redundant comment Source/Web/Client/Pages/Topic.razor.cs:15 — "var options = new BlazorDiagramOptions" — delete - the Options initializer already names this
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×1
  • Low IaC: DS-0026 Source/Web/Server/Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1
  • Further orphaned files (smaller) — 18 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than listed individually (18 orphaned of 18 analysed files in total).
Info — 19 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×17
  • XML-doc coverage: Shared.Kernel Source/Shared/Kernel/Shared.Kernel.csproj — Shared.Kernel: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/95).
  • XML-doc coverage: Web.Server Source/Web/Server/Web.Server.csproj — Web.Server: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/37).
  • XML-doc coverage: Web.Client Source/Web/Client/Web.Client.csproj — Web.Client: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/26).
  • XML-doc coverage: Modules.TenantIdentity.Web.Server Source/Modules/TenantIdentity/Web/Server/Modules.TenantIdentity.Web.Server.csproj — Modules.TenantIdentity.Web.Server: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/24).
  • XML-doc coverage: Modules.TenantIdentity.Web.Client Source/Modules/TenantIdentity/Web/Client/Modules.TenantIdentity.Web.Client.csproj — Modules.TenantIdentity.Web.Client: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).
  • XML-doc coverage: Modules.Subscriptions.Web.Server Source/Modules/Subscriptions/Web/Server/Modules.Subscriptions.Web.Server.csproj — Modules.Subscriptions.Web.Server: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/14).
  • XML-doc coverage: Modules.Channels.Public Source/Modules/Channels/Public/Modules.Channels.Public.csproj — Modules.Channels.Public: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/10).
  • XML-doc coverage: Modules.Subscriptions.Public Source/Modules/Subscriptions/Public/Modules.Subscriptions.Public.csproj — Modules.Subscriptions.Public: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/3).
  • XML-doc coverage: Modules.TenantIdentity.Public Source/Modules/TenantIdentity/Public/Modules.TenantIdentity.Public.csproj — Modules.TenantIdentity.Public: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/24).
  • XML-doc coverage: Shared.Features Source/Shared/Features/Shared.Features.csproj — Shared.Features: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/131).
  • XML-doc coverage: Modules.LandingPages.Server Source/Modules/LandingPages/Web/Server/Modules.LandingPages.Server.csproj — Modules.LandingPages.Server: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/29).
  • XML-doc coverage: Modules.Channels.Web.Server Source/Modules/Channels/Web/Server/Modules.Channels.Web.Server.csproj — Modules.Channels.Web.Server: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/11).
  • XML-doc coverage: Modules.Channels.Web.Client Source/Modules/Channels/Web/Client/Modules.Channels.Web.Client.csproj — Modules.Channels.Web.Client: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/2).
  • XML-doc coverage: Modules.TenantIdentity.Features Source/Modules/TenantIdentity/Features/Modules.TenantIdentity.Features/Modules.TenantIdentity.Features.csproj — Modules.TenantIdentity.Features: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/171).
  • XML-doc coverage: Modules.Subscriptions.Features Source/Modules/Subscriptions/Features/Modules.Subscriptions.Features.csproj — Modules.Subscriptions.Features: 2 % XML-doc coverage (2/84).
  • XML-doc coverage: Modules.Channels.Features Source/Modules/Channels/Features/Modules.Channels.Features.csproj — Modules.Channels.Features: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/78).
  • XML-doc coverage: Shared.Client Source/Shared/Client/Shared.Client.csproj — Shared.Client: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/10).
D18 · Solution Shape · Build status unknown · ×1
  • Build status unknown — The build did not finish within its budget on this run; structural metrics are reported, build/warning status is unknown.
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)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution0—
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy config --format json --quiet .2artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: 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 Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.0—

Run 019f1578-ac37-74fb-930f-0e9807e283fe · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 2 field(s) across 1 category, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.

Email — 2 field(s)
  • TenantInvitation.Email Source/Modules/TenantIdentity/Features/Modules.TenantIdentity.Features/DomainFeatures/Tenants/TenantInvitation.cs:12
  • ClaimConstants.EmailClaimType Source/Shared/Kernel/BuildingBlocks/Auth/Constants/ClaimConstants.cs:9

Issues: 6 · Warnings: 21 · Recommendations: 12 · Info: 19 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 29-06-2026 @ 22:20 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

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

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