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.
DevrexLabs/OrigoDB carries serious gaps (47%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
The area that most needs attention is Security (41%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Readiness (41%) is the next concern — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection /… (Data Protection); Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation); CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates).
For scale: Small (~10,131 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.6 person-years (~1–2 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.
Code Health
83%
Healthy
Architecture
79%
Fair · gated by D26
Maturity
54%
Fair · gated by M2
Readiness
41%
Poor · gated by P1, P3
Security
41%
Poor · gated by C1
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 1%Plumbing 8%Tests 91%
New since the last scan (1+)
- D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: OrigoDB.Core src/OrigoDB.Core/OrigoDB.Core.csproj
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €28,000–€140,000
| Cost to rebuild | €28,000–€140,000 |
| Domain complexity | Low |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 47% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 52% boilerplate · 33% straight-line · 15% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.6 person-years of build effort (about ~€84,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 41% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
2
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
3
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.6 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 41%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.). The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
9.7
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
9.2
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
10.0
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
9.7
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
9.8
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
7.6
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
The Bad
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
The Bad
The Ugly
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
At a glance — Security
The Good
Roadmap
Immediately encrypt sensitive data at rest and manage keys in a secure vault. Secure password storage by implementing a salted key derivation function and using constant-time comparison. Establish a CI/CD pipeline to automatically build and test every change. Document key architectural decisions and add a quick-start section to the README to help new contributors.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.). | +5.0 pts | Medium | Data Protection |
| Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. | +4.0 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. | +4.0 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Store passwords with a salted KDF — `Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.PasswordHasher<T>`, `Rfc2898DeriveBytes` (PBKDF2), or BCrypt/Argon2 — and compare with `CryptographicOperations.FixedTimeEquals`. (A fast/plain hash, or a client-hashed value stored and compared verbatim, is not password storage.) Start in `src/OrigoDB.Core/Security/User.cs:12`. | +3.0 pts | Medium | Cryptographic Hygiene |
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +1.0 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs. | +1.6 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Add policy-based authorization — name the access rules (AddAuthorization(o => o.AddPolicy(…))) and apply them via [Authorize(Policy = …)] or RequireAuthorization. | +1.5 pts | Medium | Access Controls |
| Resolve the 1 Split OrigoDB.Core finding(s) in Project Cohesion. | +0.7 pts | Low | Project Cohesion |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/SqlStorageTest.cs | 5.2 | Mixed | Test Quality: No assertions: DisplayProviders |
| src/OrigoDB.Core/Engine.cs | 6.0 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/OrigoDB.Core/OrigoDB.Core.csproj | 6.1 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj |
| src/OrigoDB.Core/Modeling/Redis/RedisModel.cs | 6.3 | Mixed | God Classes: FileTooLong: Redis/RedisModel.cs |
| src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/EngineTest.cs | 6.5 | Mixed | Test Quality: No assertions: CanCreateEngine |
| src/LiveDomain.Core/Engine.cs | 6.5 | Mixed | Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: Engine.cs ↔ SqlStore.cs |
| src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/Models/Relational/RelationalTests.cs | 7.0 | Mixed | Test Quality: No assertions: Can_delete |
| src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/Proxy/MethodMapTests.cs | 7.0 | Mixed | Test Quality: No assertions: Implicit_internal_command_is_mapped |
| src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/CachingLinqCompilerTest.cs | 7.5 | Mixed | Test Quality: No assertions: CanCompileInjectedEvilCode |
| src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/CommandJournalTest.cs | 7.7 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/OrigoDB.Core/Storage/Sql/SqlCommandStore.cs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Cohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: SqlCommandStore (LCOM4 4) |
| src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/AuthenticationModelTests.cs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions: CanAddUserWithoutRoles |
| src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/CompressorTests.cs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions: Performance |
| src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/EngineConfigurationTest.cs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions: CanLoadAndCreateRepeatedly |
| src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/Models/GraphModelTests.cs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions: GraphIsSerializable |
| src/LiveDomain.Core.Test/TestModel.cs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: TestModel.cs ↔ Engine.cs |
| src/OrigoDB.Core/Clients/FailoverClusterClient.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/OrigoDB.Core/Configuration/CompressionMethod.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/OrigoDB.Core/Storage/Journaling/AsynchronousJournalWriter.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/Domain/TestModel.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
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. 39 of 43 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 43 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D22D24D26D28D29D30D34D35AX10AX3AX4AX6C1C2GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P3S1X1X3X4
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
- 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, 54 of 77 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D31 IaC & Container Security — 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.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (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.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- 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.
- D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
1 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was MethodMap.Create at 18.
MethodMap.Create (cognitive 18)src/OrigoDB.Core/Proxying/MethodMap.cs:39
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
2 god class(es) detected.
TooManyMethods: RedisModel src/OrigoDB.Core/Modeling/Redis/RedisModel.cs:0
FileTooLong: Redis/RedisModel.cssrc/OrigoDB.Core/Modeling/Redis/RedisModel.cs:0
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
1 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2)src/OrigoDB.Core/Storage/Sql/OleDbStatements.cs:18
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
2 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Off the main sequence: OrigoDB.Core
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
11 of 68 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Low cohesion: PartitionClient (LCOM4 7) src/OrigoDB.Core/Clients/PartitionClient.cs:13
What to do
- Resolve the 11 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with ByteCountingStream.cs, ClusterClient.cs, CommandStore.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
- Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
238 test methods: 238 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
4 skipped, 13 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 238 tests.
No assertions: CanAddUserWithoutRoles src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/AuthenticationModelTests.cs:56
Skipped test: SqlCommandStoreWriteReadEntries src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/SqlStorageTest.cs:48
Mock framework: FakeItEasy
What to do
- Resolve the 13 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with EngineTest.cs (3), MethodMapTests.cs (2), RelationalTests.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 issue-level).
- Resolve the 4 Skipped test finding(s) in Test Quality — start with SqlStorageTest.cs (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
7 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 10131 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.7.
NoWarnInCsprojsrc/OrigoDB.Core/OrigoDB.Core.csproj:45
TodoComment src/OrigoDB.Core/Clients/FailoverClusterClient.cs:21
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
2 projects, 261 .cs files, 109414 hand-written lines of code (10131 production / 99283 test), 1 inter-project edges (build failed).
Build did not complete in the analyzer
OrigoDB.Core (Production)src/OrigoDB.Core/OrigoDB.Core.csproj
OrigoDB.Test.NUnit (Test)src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/OrigoDB.Test.NUnit.csproj
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The documentation provides a functional but inconsistent user experience. The README serves as a high-level overview but contains a critical typo ('Key Stren' instead of 'Key Strengths') and directs users to an external website for the bulk of the documentation. The internal documentation is structured as a series of Markdown files that are often truncated or incomplete, with several sections ending abruptly or containing placeholder text (e.g., 'Th' in views.md). While the table of contents and file structure are logical, the lack of complete, self-contained content within the repository significantly reduces its utility.
Low XML-doc coverage: OrigoDB.Coresrc/OrigoDB.Core/OrigoDB.Core.csproj
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with OrigoDB.Core.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
No ADRs found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D22 · Internal API Consistency
No public API surface exposed; nothing to be inconsistent.
No exposed public API
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
12 valuable / 18 redundant across 149 sampled comments; 4 shown with locations.
redundant comment src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/CachingLinqCompilerTest.cs:175
What to do
- Resolve the 4 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with CachingLinqCompilerTest.cs, CommandJournalTest.cs, PacketTest.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
1 of 2 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Split OrigoDB.Core
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Split OrigoDB.Core finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable NuGet packages (direct or transitive).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: Engine.cs↔Model.cs 71%; InMemoryStore.cs↔Store.cs 71%; Engine.cs↔Query.cs 70%
Boundary-crossing change coupling: TestModel.cs ↔ Engine.cs src/LiveDomain.Core.Test/TestModel.cs
Change coupling: Engine.cs ↔ Model.cs src/OrigoDB.Core/Engine.cs
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
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).
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
- `ILogger` declares 18 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ILogger.cs:5
What to do
- Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C1 · Data Protection
- 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.).
- Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C2 · Access Controls
- Authorization IS enforced here (via [Authorize]/guards) — this is NOT a claim that endpoints are unprotected. What's missing is NAMED policies (AddAuthorization/AddPolicy, RequireRole/RequireClaim, RequireAuthorization): the access rules are implicit rather than named and testable. Recommendation, not a defect — name the rules so they're reviewable.
What to do
- Add policy-based authorization — name the access rules (AddAuthorization(o => o.AddPolicy(…))) and apply them via [Authorize(Policy = …)] or RequireAuthorization.
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
- A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×6) — PartitionClient.cs:111, PartitionClient.cs:116, SqlCommandStore.cs:104, …
What to do
- Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- `Execute` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×3) — PartitionClient.cs:109, PartitionClient.cs:114, ImmutabilityCommand.cs:15
- `GetClient` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — PartitionClusterClientConfiguration.cs:11
- `CreateJournalWriterStream` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — SqlCommandStore.cs:102
- A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something. (×4) — SqlStorageTest.cs:48, SqlStorageTest.cs:69, SqlStorageTest.cs:88, …
- A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×3) — RemoteConnection.cs:62, RemoteConnection.cs:110, CachingLinqCompiler.cs:149
- `Execute`'s body only throws NotSupportedException — sometimes a deliberate contract, often an unfinished stub. Confirm it's intentional. — NotAllowedOperation.cs:16
- `Close` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — SqlJournalWriter.cs:32
- `EnterRead` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — NullSynchronizer.cs:10
- `EnterUpgrade` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — NullSynchronizer.cs:15
- `EnterWrite` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — NullSynchronizer.cs:20
- `Exit` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — NullSynchronizer.cs:25
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 2 of 2 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- 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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
What to do
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
- No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
- Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- 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.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
S1 · Cryptographic Hygiene
- Identifier 'PasswordHash' looks like a password-hash field/property, but no KDF (PBKDF2 / Argon2 / BCrypt / PasswordHasher) was found anywhere in the source — so passwords aren't protected by a salted key-derivation function (whether a fast/plain hash, or a client-hashed value stored and compared verbatim). Password storage needs a salted KDF and a constant-time compare. — User.cs:12
- MD5/SHA1 is broken for security purposes (collision-vulnerable). Use SHA-256+ for content integrity; for password storage, use a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt). — Packet.cs:42
What to do
- Store passwords with a salted KDF — `Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.PasswordHasher<T>`, `Rfc2898DeriveBytes` (PBKDF2), or BCrypt/Argon2 — and compare with `CryptographicOperations.FixedTimeEquals`. (A fast/plain hash, or a client-hashed value stored and compared verbatim, is not password storage.) Start in `src/OrigoDB.Core/Security/User.cs:12`.
- Replace MD5/SHA1 with SHA-256+ for content hashing; switch to a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
- `throw ex;` resets the exception's stack trace to this line, hiding where it really came from. Use a bare `throw;` to preserve the original stack. — Engine.cs:186
What to do
- Rethrow loses stack trace (`throw ex;`)
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 83% | Healthy | Strongest area. |
| Architecture | 79% | Fair — gated by D26 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 54% | Fair — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 41% | Poor — gated by P1, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 41% | Poor — gated by C1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 48 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX5 Architecture & structure — no elaborate style needed at this size (~10.1k production LoC (235 types) across 1 project(s) / 20 namespace(s) with no recognised architectural style or layering — at this size, deliberate module boundaries would help.)
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
- C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
- D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
- D14 License Compliance — License scan unavailable
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — single shared-core project — no cross-context coupling to assess
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — Navigability unmeasured — symbol resolution incomplete
- D31 IaC & Container Security — Not applicable
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — Not applicable
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — Not applicable
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- 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.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 16 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality
- No assertions: CanAddUserWithoutRoles src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/AuthenticationModelTests.cs:56
- No assertions: CanCompileInjectedEvilCode src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/CachingLinqCompilerTest.cs:114
- No assertions: Performance src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/CompressorTests.cs:27
- No assertions: CanLoadAndCreateRepeatedly src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/EngineConfigurationTest.cs:14
- No assertions: CanCreateEngine src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/EngineTest.cs:9
- No assertions: CanCreateEngineUsingDefaultLocationAndConfig src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/EngineTest.cs:15
- No assertions: CanLoadEngine src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/EngineTest.cs:23
- No assertions: GraphIsSerializable src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/Models/GraphModelTests.cs:29
- No assertions: Can_delete src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/Models/Relational/RelationalTests.cs:66
- No assertions: Can_delete_using_EntityKey src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/Models/Relational/RelationalTests.cs:74
- No assertions: Implicit_internal_command_is_mapped src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/Proxy/MethodMapTests.cs:123
- No assertions: Implicit_internal_query_is_mapped src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/Proxy/MethodMapTests.cs:130
- No assertions: DisplayProviders src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/SqlStorageTest.cs:20
D35 · Change Coupling
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: TestModel.cs ↔ Engine.cs src/LiveDomain.Core.Test/TestModel.cs
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: Engine.cs ↔ SqlStore.cs src/LiveDomain.Core/Engine.cs
D17 · Explicit Debt
- NoWarnInCsproj src/OrigoDB.Core/OrigoDB.Core.csproj:45
Warning — 34 finding(s)
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
- Low cohesion: PartitionClient (LCOM4 7) src/OrigoDB.Core/Clients/PartitionClient.cs:13
- Low cohesion: Engine (LCOM4 7) src/OrigoDB.Core/Engine.cs:16
- Low cohesion: ClusterClient (LCOM4 5) src/OrigoDB.Core/Clients/ClusterClient.cs:9
- Low cohesion: NullWriteStream (LCOM4 5) src/OrigoDB.Core/Storage/NullWriteStream.cs:9
- Low cohesion: EngineConfiguration (LCOM4 5) src/OrigoDB.Core/Configuration/EngineConfiguration.cs:13
- Low cohesion: RemoteEngineClient (LCOM4 4) src/OrigoDB.Core/Clients/RemoteEngineClient.cs:9
- Low cohesion: RedisModel (LCOM4 4) src/OrigoDB.Core/Modeling/Redis/RedisModel.cs:16
- Low cohesion: SqlCommandStore (LCOM4 4) src/OrigoDB.Core/Storage/Sql/SqlCommandStore.cs:15
- Low cohesion: JournalAppender (LCOM4 4) src/OrigoDB.Core/Storage/Journaling/JournalAppender.cs:11
- Low cohesion: ByteCountingStream (LCOM4 4) src/OrigoDB.Core/Storage/ByteCountingStream.cs:10
- Low cohesion: CommandStore (LCOM4 4) src/OrigoDB.Core/Storage/CommandStore.cs:14
D17 · Explicit Debt
- TodoComment src/OrigoDB.Core/Clients/FailoverClusterClient.cs:21
- TodoComment src/OrigoDB.Core/Configuration/CompressionMethod.cs:23
- TodoComment src/OrigoDB.Core/Storage/Journaling/AsynchronousJournalWriter.cs:15
- TodoComment src/OrigoDB.Core/Engine.cs:283
- TodoComment src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/CommandJournalTest.cs:53
- TodoComment src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/Domain/TestModel.cs:171
D35 · Change Coupling
- Change coupling: Engine.cs ↔ Model.cs src/OrigoDB.Core/Engine.cs
- Change coupling: Engine.cs ↔ Query.cs src/LiveDomain.Core/Engine.cs
- Change coupling: ClusterInfo.cs ↔ NetworkMessage.cs src/LiveDomain.Core/Clients/Remote/Messages/ClusterInfo.cs
- Change coupling: StreamJournalWriter.cs ↔ Store.cs src/OrigoDB.Core/Journaling/StreamJournalWriter.cs
- Change coupling: Engine.cs ↔ Kernel.cs src/OrigoDB.Core/Engine.cs
D10 · Test Quality
- Skipped test: SqlCommandStoreWriteReadEntries src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/SqlStorageTest.cs:48
- Skipped test: TruncateJournal src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/SqlStorageTest.cs:69
- Skipped test: Initstatement_is_idempotent src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/SqlStorageTest.cs:88
- Skipped test: SqlProviderIntegrationTest src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/SqlStorageTest.cs:100
D3 · God Classes
- TooManyMethods: RedisModel src/OrigoDB.Core/Modeling/Redis/RedisModel.cs:0
- TooManyMethods: Engine src/OrigoDB.Core/Engine.For.cs:0
D19 · Documentation Quality
- Low XML-doc coverage: OrigoDB.Core src/OrigoDB.Core/OrigoDB.Core.csproj
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- MethodMap.Create (cognitive 18) src/OrigoDB.Core/Proxying/MethodMap.cs:39
D3 · God Classes
- FileTooLong: Redis/RedisModel.cs src/OrigoDB.Core/Modeling/Redis/RedisModel.cs:0
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/OrigoDB.Core/Storage/Sql/OleDbStatements.cs:18
D5 · Coupling
- Off the main sequence: OrigoDB.Core
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured
Recommendation — 18 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/CachingLinqCompilerTest.cs:175
- redundant comment src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/CommandJournalTest.cs:44
- redundant comment src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/PacketTest.cs:18
- redundant comment src/OrigoDB.Core/Storage/Sql/SqlCommandStore.cs:55
D11 · Test Reliability
- No tests discovered
D14 · License Compliance
- License scan unavailable
D20 · ADR Quality
- No ADRs found
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- single shared-core project — no cross-context coupling to assess
D25 · ADR Conformance
- no ADRs to check
D26 · Project Cohesion
- Split OrigoDB.Core
D27 · Navigability
- Navigability unmeasured — symbol resolution incomplete
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Not applicable
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)
- Not applicable
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Not applicable
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
- Not applicable
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D7 · Architectural Integrity
- No checkable ADRs to assess
Info — 9 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality
- Mock framework: FakeItEasy
D18 · Solution Shape
- Build did not complete in the analyzer
D18 · Solution Shape
- OrigoDB.Core (Production) src/OrigoDB.Core/OrigoDB.Core.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- OrigoDB.Test.NUnit (Test) src/OrigoDB.Core.UnitTests/OrigoDB.Test.NUnit.csproj
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
D9 · Test Distribution
- Unit tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- Integration tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- BDD tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- E2E tests
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list src/OrigoDB.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 0 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| 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 Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | 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 & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | 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 Vulnerabilities | osv-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 | — |