In-memory event-sourced transactional object graph engine
Public report — memstate, published 19 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 19-06-2026 @ 21:44 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

DevrexLabs/memstate

coverage not measuredbounded contexts not declared
43% Poor
Architecture 86% Healthy Accessibility 59% Fair Code Health 58% Fair Maturity 50% Fair Performance 50% Poor Security 42% Poor Readiness 37% Poor

Small · 13,326 LoC · 15 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (37%)

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

56/60dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 4 LLM-assisted, advisory
102findings with an exact file:lineof 128 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
60/92dimensions across the health lenses13326 LoC · 15 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.

DevrexLabs/memstate carries serious risk (43%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

It is strongest in Architecture (86%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (37%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Security (42%) is the next concern — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Protect endpoints by default-deny (Access Controls); Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it (Async & latency hygiene); Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation).

For scale: Small (~13,326 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (86%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 58% Fair · gated by X5 Architecture 86% Healthy Maturity 50% Fair · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 37% Poor · gated by P1, P3 Security 42% Poor · gated by C2 Accessibility 59% Fair Performance 50% Poor · gated by PF3
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 16%Plumbing 63%Tests 22%
New since the last scan (10+)

10 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-06-19) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.JsonNet src/Memstate.JsonNet/Memstate.JsonNet.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.Host src/Memstate.Host/Memstate.Host.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.Benchmarks src/Memstate.Benchmarks/Memstate.Benchmarks.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.Core src/Memstate.Core/Memstate.Core.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.Wire src/Memstate.Wire/Memstate.Wire.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.MsConfig src/Memstate.MsConfig/Memstate.MsConfig.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.AppMetrics src/Memstate.AppMetrics/Memstate.AppMetrics.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.Runner src/Memstate.Runner/Memstate.Runner.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Trello.Core src/Trello.Core/Trello.Core.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Trello.Web src/Trello.Web/Trello.Web.csproj

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €5,500–€27,000
Cost to rebuild€5,500–€27,000 (0.1–0.2 person-years (92–289 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 43% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 48% boilerplate · 32% straight-line · 20% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€17,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 37% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

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

Top priorities

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

1
Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.
+4.8 pts · Medium effort · Access Controls
2
Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.
+3.6 pts · Medium effort · Async & latency hygiene
3
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
+2.9 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

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 Readiness at 37%. 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 (13,326 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 37%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

arch MemState.EventStore EventStore Memstate.JsonNet JsonNet MemState.EventStore->Memstate.JsonNet Memstate.All All Memstate.AppMetrics AppMetrics Memstate.All->Memstate.AppMetrics Memstate.Core Core Memstate.All->Memstate.Core Memstate.All->Memstate.JsonNet Memstate.MsConfig MsConfig Memstate.All->Memstate.MsConfig Memstate.Wire Wire Memstate.All->Memstate.Wire Memstate.AppMetrics->Memstate.Core Memstate.Host Host Memstate.Host->Memstate.AppMetrics Memstate.Host->Memstate.JsonNet Memstate.Host->Memstate.MsConfig Memstate.Host->Memstate.Wire Memstate.JsonNet->Memstate.Core Memstate.MsConfig->Memstate.Core Memstate.Runner Runner Memstate.Runner->Memstate.Core Memstate.Runner->Memstate.Host Memstate.Wire->Memstate.Core Trello.Core Core Trello.Core->Memstate.Core Trello.Web Web Trello.Web->Memstate.JsonNet Trello.Web->Trello.Core

At a glance — Code Health · 58% · Fair · gated by X5

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 9.1 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 8.3 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 9.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.8 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 9.9 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 9.5 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 8.1 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0
The Bad
X1 · Repo Async correctness 6.5
The Ugly
X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 4.6 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 2.0

At a glance — Architecture · 86% · Healthy

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 7.9 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.2 D22 · .NET / C# Internal API Consistency 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 8.7 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 9.4 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 9.8
The Bad
AX10 · Repo Code composition 6.3

At a glance — Maturity · 50% · Fair · gated by D34, M2

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 10.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 8.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Bad
M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.8
The Ugly
D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 3.0 D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 3.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 37% · Poor · gated by P1, P3

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 8.4 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 10.0
The Bad
P2 · Repo Observability 5.5 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0
The Ugly
P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 1.0

At a glance — Security · 42% · Poor · gated by C2

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
The Bad
S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 5.5
The Ugly
C2 · Repo Access Controls 0.0

At a glance — Accessibility · 59% · Fair

The Good
AC5 · Repo ARIA correctness 10.0 AC6 · Repo Visual & motion safety 10.0
The Bad
AC3 · Repo Page structure 5.2
The Ugly
AC2 · Repo Forms & labels 4.8 AC7 · Repo A11y enforcement 4.0

At a glance — Performance · 50% · Poor · gated by PF3

The Good
PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 8.0
The Bad
PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.0
The Ugly
PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 2.5

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, enforce strict access controls by implementing default-deny authorization and imperative guards across all handlers. Next, ensure the entire call chain is fully asynchronous to prevent blocking, and begin documenting significant architectural decisions in an ADR log. Additionally, replace weak hashing algorithms with SHA-256 or stronger, and use a proper key derivation function for password storage. Finally, optimize hot paths by reducing memory allocations through the use of Span<T>, ArrayPool<T>, and ValueTask.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.+4.8 ptsMediumAccess Controls
Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.+3.6 ptsMediumAsync & latency hygiene
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.+2.9 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Replace MD5/SHA1 with SHA-256+ for content hashing; switch to a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage.+2.1 ptsMediumWeb-Security Posture
On hot paths, prefer Span<T>/ReadOnlySpan<T>, ArrayPool<T>, stackalloc and ValueTask to cut allocations a consumer would otherwise inherit.+1.9 ptsMediumAllocation hygiene
Resolve the 2 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Engine.cs, RedisServerCommand.cs.+1.0 ptsLowKnowledge Freshness
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.+1.7 ptsMediumA11y enforcement
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.+1.6 ptsMediumCI/CD gates

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 43 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 23% mixed · 77% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/Log4NetLogProvider.cs5.9MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (13 lines × 2)
src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Memstate.Core/Models/Redis/RedisModel.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Dockerfile6.5MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
MemState.EventStore/EventStoreWriter.cs6.5MixedChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: EventStoreWriter.cs ↔ Engine.cs
src/Memstate.Host/Commands/Benchmark.cs6.5MixedChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: Benchmark.cs ↔ PostgresProvider.cs
src/Memstate.Test/EngineTests.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: No assertions: Subscription_is_disposed_when_engine_is_disposed
src/Memstate.Test/Proxy/MethodMapTests.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: No assertions: Implicit_internal_command_is_mapped
src/Memstate.Core/Proxying/OperationInfo.cs7.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Memstate.Core/Tcp/MemstateServer.cs7.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Memstate.Test/BatcherTests.cs8.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: Batcher_terminates_when_disposed
src/System.Test/SystemTests.cs8.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: Can_execute_void_commands
src/Memstate.Docs.GettingStarted/Configuration/MinimalConfigurationTests.cs8.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: Most_compact_start_using_all_default_configurations
MemState.EventStore/EventStoreSubscriptionSource.cs8.0Near-cleanChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: EventStoreSubscriptionSource.cs ↔ InMemoryCommandStore.cs
src/Memstate.Host/Commands/DemoCommand.cs8.0Near-cleanChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: DemoCommand.cs ↔ PostgresProvider.cs
src/Memstate.Host/Host.cs8.0Near-cleanChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: Host.cs ↔ PostgresProvider.cs
src/Memstate.Test/ClientTests.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Memstate.Host/Web/wwwroot/js/application.js8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: success (cognitive 31)
src/Memstate.Core/Proxying/MethodMap.cs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: MethodMap.Create (cognitive 18)
src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogExtensions.cs8.5Near-cleanGod Classes: TooManyMethods: LogExtensions

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. 56 of 60 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 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 60 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D22D24D26D28D29D31D34D35AC2AC3AC5AC6AC7AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6C2GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6PF1PF2PF3S1X1X2X3X4X5

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, 102 of 128 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 measurementQwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019ee1d7-d1b0-7fb5-b6b7-83f9dcf4c931.

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.
  • 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").
  • 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.
  • 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").
  • 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.
  • 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, and component-wrapped fields (e.g. a <TextField>) are 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. Static readiness, not conformance.
  • 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 — only literal inline colours and in-repo <style>-block CSS are read; external stylesheets, CSS-in-JS, computed/runtime/theme colour, and image contrast are all out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the markup 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.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (6): D19, D20, D21, D22, D24, M4 (model: Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.1 / 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 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was TinyIoCContainer.CanResolveInternal at 28.

TinyIoCContainer.CanResolveInternal (cyclomatic 28)src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3595
TinyIoCContainer.ResolveInternal (cyclomatic 25)src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3726
TinyIoCContainer.AutoRegisterInternal (cyclomatic 16)src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3424

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.3 / 10Healthy✓ 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 8.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

5 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was TinyIoCContainer.CanResolveInternal at 50.

TinyIoCContainer.CanResolveInternal (cognitive 50)src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3595
TinyIoCContainer.ResolveInternal (cognitive 39)src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3726
success (cognitive 31)src/Memstate.Host/Web/wwwroot/js/application.js:6
TinyIoCContainer.AutoRegisterInternal (cognitive 21)src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3424
MethodMap.Create (cognitive 18)src/Memstate.Core/Proxying/MethodMap.cs:18

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 TinyIoCContainer.CanResolveInternal (cognitive 50) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with TinyIoC.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 TinyIoCContainer.ResolveInternal (cognitive 39) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with TinyIoC.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 success (cognitive 31) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with application.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D3 · God Classes9.0 / 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 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: TinyIoCContainer · ×3src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:0
FileTooLong: Configuration/TinyIoC.cssrc/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:0

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D4 · Code Duplication9.8 / 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 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

6 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/Log4NetLogProvider.cs:161
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2)src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3728
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2)src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/Log4NetLogProvider.cs:87
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2)src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3604
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2)src/Memstate.Runner/Commands/ReadBenchmarkCommand.cs:35

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D5 · Coupling7.9 / 10Healthy✓ 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 7.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: Memstate.JsonNet · ×4

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.2 / 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 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

6 of 87 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: TinyIoCContainer (LCOM4 26) · ×6src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:1075

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

130 test methods: 130 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D10 · Test Quality8.4 / 10Healthy✓ 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 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

8 skipped (8 with a documented reason), 7 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 130 tests.

No assertions: Batcher_terminates_when_disposed · ×7src/Memstate.Test/BatcherTests.cs:10
Skipped (documented): Expires · ×8src/Memstate.Test/Models/Redis/ExpirationTests.cs:14
Mock framework: FakeItEasy

What to do

  1. Resolve the 7 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with EngineTests.cs (2), MethodMapTests.cs (2), BatcherTests.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 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.

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 25 packages use a banned license.

Licenses scanned

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.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 Factor10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

10 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 13326 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.9.

TodoComment · ×10src/Memstate.Test/ClientTests.cs:38
Justified suppression · ×4src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3443

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D18 · Solution Shape9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

15 projects, 274 .cs files, 17020 hand-written lines of code (13326 production / 3694 test), 27 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).

Shell project: Memstate.Allsrc/Memstate.All/Memstate.All.csproj
Build status unknown
Memstate.JsonNet (Production)src/Memstate.JsonNet/Memstate.JsonNet.csproj
Memstate.Host (Production)src/Memstate.Host/Memstate.Host.csproj
Memstate.Test (Test)src/Memstate.Test/Memstate.Test.csproj

+ 12 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Poor◐ 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 Poor / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The project features a strong, well-structured README that effectively explains the product's value proposition. However, the internal documentation is severely incomplete, with most sub-pages containing only placeholder text ('coming (tbd)'). Furthermore, the XML documentation coverage across the codebase is critically low, with several key libraries at 0% coverage. The architecture documentation is also incomplete, with a section header referencing a file that does not exist.

Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.JsonNet · ×10src/Memstate.JsonNet/Memstate.JsonNet.csproj
The document contains only placeholder text: 'configuration documentation coming. (tbd)'. · ×5src/Memstate.Docs.GettingStarted/Configuration/readme.md
XML-doc coverage: Memstate.Allsrc/Memstate.All/Memstate.All.csproj

What to do

  1. Resolve the 10 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Memstate.AppMetrics.csproj, Memstate.Benchmarks.csproj, Memstate.Core.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 5 The document contains only placeholder text finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with readme.md (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 recommendation-level).

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 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D22 · Internal API Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

No public API surface exposed; nothing to be inconsistent.

No exposed public API

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

12 valuable / 45 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 4 shown with locations.

redundant comment · ×3src/Memstate.Core/Batcher.cs:50
misleading commentsrc/Memstate.Core/Proxying/OperationInfo.cs:81

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Batcher.cs, IniFile.cs, MemstateServer.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 misleading comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with OperationInfo.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D26 · Project Cohesion8.7 / 10Healthy✓ 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 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 15 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split Memstate.Core

What to do

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

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

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-0002Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
Low IaC: DS-0026Dockerfiledetected 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

2 of 2 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Memstate.Core/Engine.cs.

Orphaned knowledge · ×2src/Memstate.Core/Engine.cs

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Engine.cs, RedisServerCommand.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

D35 · Change Coupling9.4 / 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: EventStoreWriter.cs↔Engine.cs 80%; Benchmark.cs↔DemoCommand.cs 80%; EventStoreWriter.cs↔Batcher.cs 76%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: EventStoreWriter.cs ↔ Engine.cs · ×7MemState.EventStore/EventStoreWriter.cs
Change coupling: Benchmark.cs ↔ DemoCommand.cs · ×2src/Memstate.Host/Commands/Benchmark.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC2 · Forms & labels4.8 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, fieldsets have a legend, 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.

  • This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. — Index.cshtml:18

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 structure5.2 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language and title, expose a main landmark and a sane heading order, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes 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.

  • No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×2) — MemstateBenchmarks-report.html:2, index.html:2
  • Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one. — Board.cshtml:9

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.
AC5 · ARIA correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, and no aria-hidden on 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: only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible, never computed or runtime 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 / 10Poor✓ 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 composition6.3 / 10Fair✓ 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 segregation9.8 / 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.

  • `IRedisModel` declares 93 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. — IRedisModel.cs:7

What to do

  • Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
C2 · Access Controls0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • No [Authorize]/policies and no imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) were found — endpoints may be unprotected.

What to do

  • Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — Config.cs:194

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs8.1 / 10Healthy✓ 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.

  • `PendingLocalCommands` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — NullEngineMetrics.cs:17
  • `Total` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. — Benchmark.cs:68
  • `Totals` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. — Benchmark.cs:73
  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×10) — MemstateBenchmarks.cs:45, TinyIoC.cs:2845, TinyIoC.cs:3841, …
  • `QueryExecuted` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — NullEngineMetrics.cs:9
  • `QueryFailed` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — NullEngineMetrics.cs:11
  • `CommandExecuted` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — NullEngineMetrics.cs:13
  • `CommandFailed` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — NullEngineMetrics.cs:15
  • `ExecuteMapped`'s body only throws NotSupportedException — sometimes a deliberate contract, often an unfinished stub. Confirm it's intentional. — NotAllowedOperation.cs:14
  • `ExecuteProxy`'s body only throws NotSupportedException — sometimes a deliberate contract, often an unfinished stub. Confirm it's intentional. — NotAllowedOperation.cs:19
  • A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something. (×8) — ExpirationTests.cs:15, ExpirationTests.cs:31, ExpirationTests.cs:75, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)6.8 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 14 of 15 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.9 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 structure8.0 / 10Healthy✓ 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.

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

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

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

P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • 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.
P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries. Exhaustive, deterministic.

P2 · Observability5.5 / 10Fair✓ 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 2/4 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 tooling1.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Fair✓ 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.
P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
PF1 · Benchmark discipline8.0 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the library protects its performance with benchmarks — a BenchmarkDotNet suite, an allocation MemoryDiagnoser, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

  • A BenchmarkDotNet suite exists but no [MemoryDiagnoser] — allocations (the main way a library pressures its host's GC) aren't being measured.

What to do

  • Add [MemoryDiagnoser] to the benchmarks so allocation regressions are visible, not just time.
PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.0 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's GC — Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

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

What to do

  • On hot paths, prefer Span<T>/ReadOnlySpan<T>, ArrayPool<T>, stackalloc and ValueTask to cut allocations a consumer would otherwise inherit.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene2.5 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 4 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock in a consumer with a synchronization context.
  • Only 10/75 awaits use ConfigureAwait(false). A library that captures the caller's context can stall or deadlock its host — the classic way a dependency drags an app down.

What to do

  • Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.
  • In library code, append .ConfigureAwait(false) to every await (or set <ConfigureAwait>false</ConfigureAwait> / use the analyzer CA2007) so the library never captures the host's context.
S1 · Web-Security Posture5.5 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. Deterministic.

  • MD5/SHA1 is broken for security purposes (collision-vulnerable). Use SHA-256+ for content integrity; for password storage, use a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt). — Md5VsSha256.cs:22
  • No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)

What to do

  • Replace MD5/SHA1 with SHA-256+ for content hashing; switch to a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage.
  • Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
  • Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
X1 · Async correctness6.5 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Make the caller `async` and `await` instead. (×2) — Startup.cs:32, Startup.cs:41

What to do

  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
X2 · Cancellation propagation4.6 / 10Poor✓ 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 4/43 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) — Host.cs:31, MetricsController.cs:8, Md5VsSha256.cs:36, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. Deterministic.

X5 · Nullable reference types2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 0/5 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 10 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria — 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
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
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)

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 Health58%Fair — gated by X5Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture86%HealthyStrongest area.
Maturity50%Fair — gated by D34, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness37%Poor — gated by P1, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security42%Poor — gated by C2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Accessibility59%FairAcceptable, with room to improve.
Performance50%Poor — gated by PF3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 32 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
  • 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
  • C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D27 Navigability — Navigability unmeasured — symbol resolution incomplete
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — 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 — only 1/3 markers (an event-store package (Marten/EventStore))
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected
  • 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
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 15 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×7
  • No assertions: Batcher_terminates_when_disposed src/Memstate.Test/BatcherTests.cs:10 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: Subscription_is_disposed_when_engine_is_disposed src/Memstate.Test/EngineTests.cs:42 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: Writer_is_disposed_when_engine_is_disposed src/Memstate.Test/EngineTests.cs:51 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: Implicit_internal_command_is_mapped src/Memstate.Test/Proxy/MethodMapTests.cs:115 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: Implicit_internal_query_is_mapped src/Memstate.Test/Proxy/MethodMapTests.cs:122 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: Can_execute_void_commands src/System.Test/SystemTests.cs:122 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: Most_compact_start_using_all_default_configurations src/Memstate.Docs.GettingStarted/Configuration/MinimalConfigurationTests.cs:19 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×7
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: EventStoreWriter.cs ↔ Engine.cs MemState.EventStore/EventStoreWriter.cs — `MemState.EventStore/EventStoreWriter.cs` (context MemState.EventStore) and `Memstate.Core/Engine.cs` (context Memstate) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 80% of the time (12 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: EventStoreWriter.cs ↔ Batcher.cs MemState.EventStore/EventStoreWriter.cs — `MemState.EventStore/EventStoreWriter.cs` (context MemState.EventStore) and `Memstate.Core/Batcher.cs` (context Memstate) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 76% of the time (13 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: EventStoreSubscriptionSource.cs ↔ InMemoryCommandStore.cs MemState.EventStore/EventStoreSubscriptionSource.cs — `MemState.EventStore/EventStoreSubscriptionSource.cs` (context MemState.EventStore) and `Memstate.Core/InMemoryCommandStore.cs` (context Memstate) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 64% of the time (9 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: EventStoreWriter.cs ↔ InMemoryCommandStore.cs MemState.EventStore/EventStoreWriter.cs — `MemState.EventStore/EventStoreWriter.cs` (context MemState.EventStore) and `Memstate.Core/InMemoryCommandStore.cs` (context Memstate) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 64% of the time (9 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: DemoCommand.cs ↔ PostgresProvider.cs src/Memstate.Host/Commands/DemoCommand.cs — `src/Memstate.Host/Commands/DemoCommand.cs` (context Memstate) and `src/Memstate.Postgresql/PostgresProvider.cs` (context Memstate.Postgresql) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 60% of the time (6 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: Benchmark.cs ↔ PostgresProvider.cs src/Memstate.Host/Commands/Benchmark.cs — `src/Memstate.Host/Commands/Benchmark.cs` (context Memstate) and `src/Memstate.Postgresql/PostgresProvider.cs` (context Memstate.Postgresql) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 55% of the time (6 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: Host.cs ↔ PostgresProvider.cs src/Memstate.Host/Host.cs — `src/Memstate.Host/Host.cs` (context Memstate) and `src/Memstate.Postgresql/PostgresProvider.cs` (context Memstate.Postgresql) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 50% of the time (5 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×1
  • High IaC: DS-0002 Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
Warning — 53 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×10
  • TodoComment src/Memstate.Test/ClientTests.cs:38 — //TODO: Need a shutdown/dispose on the client. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3494 — // TODO - find a better way to remove "system" assemblies from the auto registration — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3518 — // TODO - find a better way to remove "system" types from the auto registration — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Memstate.Core/Models/Redis/RedisModel.cs:225 — // TODO: OrigoDB used CommandAbortedException — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Memstate.Core/Models/Redis/RedisModel.cs:249 — // TODO: OrigoDB used CommandAbortedException — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Memstate.Core/Models/Redis/RedisModel.cs:255 — // TODO: OrigoDB used CommandAbortedException — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Memstate.Core/Models/Redis/RedisModel.cs:261 — // TODO: OrigoDB used CommandAbortedException — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Memstate.Core/Models/Redis/RedisModel.cs:480 — // TODO: OrigoDB relied on getting time from the current execution context. This doesn't exist in Memstate — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Memstate.Core/Proxying/OperationInfo.cs:81 — // TODO: Log the exception. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Memstate.Core/Tcp/MemstateServer.cs:103 — // TODO: Consider using MessageProcessor. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×10
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.JsonNet src/Memstate.JsonNet/Memstate.JsonNet.csproj — Memstate.JsonNet: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/8).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.Host src/Memstate.Host/Memstate.Host.csproj — Memstate.Host: 10 % XML-doc coverage (2/21).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.Benchmarks src/Memstate.Benchmarks/Memstate.Benchmarks.csproj — Memstate.Benchmarks: 7 % XML-doc coverage (1/14).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.Core src/Memstate.Core/Memstate.Core.csproj — Memstate.Core: 24 % XML-doc coverage (219/910).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.Wire src/Memstate.Wire/Memstate.Wire.csproj — Memstate.Wire: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/4).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.MsConfig src/Memstate.MsConfig/Memstate.MsConfig.csproj — Memstate.MsConfig: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/5).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.AppMetrics src/Memstate.AppMetrics/Memstate.AppMetrics.csproj — Memstate.AppMetrics: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/19).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memstate.Runner src/Memstate.Runner/Memstate.Runner.csproj — Memstate.Runner: 7 % XML-doc coverage (2/29).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Trello.Core src/Trello.Core/Trello.Core.csproj — Trello.Core: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/69).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Trello.Web src/Trello.Web/Trello.Web.csproj — Trello.Web: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/30).
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×6
  • Low cohesion: TinyIoCContainer (LCOM4 26) src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:1075 — TinyIoCContainer's methods form 26 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: LogProviderBase (LCOM4 6) src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/LogProviderBase.cs:22 — LogProviderBase's methods form 6 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: ObjectFactoryBase (LCOM4 4) src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:2754 — ObjectFactoryBase's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: Log4NetLogProvider (LCOM4 4) src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/Log4NetLogProvider.cs:16 — Log4NetLogProvider's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: NLogLogProvider (LCOM4 4) src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/NLogLogProvider.cs:14 — NLogLogProvider's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: SerilogLogProvider (LCOM4 4) src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/SerilogLogProvider.cs:12 — SerilogLogProvider's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×4
  • Off the main sequence: Memstate.JsonNet — Memstate.JsonNet: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.13, distance 0.88 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Memstate.Wire — Memstate.Wire: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.17, distance 0.83 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Memstate.Core — Memstate.Core: abstractness 0.22, instability 0.00, distance 0.78 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Memstate.MsConfig — Memstate.MsConfig: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.25, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×3
  • TooManyMethods: TinyIoCContainer src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 1009 lines, 121 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: LogExtensions src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogExtensions.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 127 lines, 49 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: RedisModel src/Memstate.Core/Models/Redis/RedisModel.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 662 lines, 108 methods.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned knowledge · ×2
  • Orphaned knowledge src/Memstate.Core/Engine.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge src/Memstate.Runner/Commands/RedisServerCommand.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×2
  • Change coupling: Benchmark.cs ↔ DemoCommand.cs src/Memstate.Host/Commands/Benchmark.cs — `src/Memstate.Host/Commands/Benchmark.cs` and `src/Memstate.Host/Commands/DemoCommand.cs` change together 80% of the time (8 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: Batcher.cs ↔ Engine.cs Memstate.Core/Batcher.cs — `Memstate.Core/Batcher.cs` and `Memstate.Core/Engine.cs` change together 73% of the time (11 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/Log4NetLogProvider.cs:161 — src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/Log4NetLogProvider.cs:161-168 | src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/NLogLogProvider.cs:193-200
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/Log4NetLogProvider.cs:316 — src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/Log4NetLogProvider.cs:316-323 | src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/NLogLogProvider.cs:338-345
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TinyIoCContainer.CanResolveInternal (cyclomatic 28) · ×1
  • TinyIoCContainer.CanResolveInternal (cyclomatic 28) src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3595 — TinyIoCContainer.CanResolveInternal has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TinyIoCContainer.ResolveInternal (cyclomatic 25) · ×1
  • TinyIoCContainer.ResolveInternal (cyclomatic 25) src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3726 — TinyIoCContainer.ResolveInternal has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TinyIoCContainer.AutoRegisterInternal (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • TinyIoCContainer.AutoRegisterInternal (cyclomatic 16) src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3424 — TinyIoCContainer.AutoRegisterInternal has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TinyIoCContainer.CanResolveInternal (cognitive 50) · ×1
  • TinyIoCContainer.CanResolveInternal (cognitive 50) src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3595 — TinyIoCContainer.CanResolveInternal has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TinyIoCContainer.ResolveInternal (cognitive 39) · ×1
  • TinyIoCContainer.ResolveInternal (cognitive 39) src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3726 — TinyIoCContainer.ResolveInternal has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · success (cognitive 31) · ×1
  • success (cognitive 31) src/Memstate.Host/Web/wwwroot/js/application.js:6 — success has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TinyIoCContainer.AutoRegisterInternal (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • TinyIoCContainer.AutoRegisterInternal (cognitive 21) src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3424 — TinyIoCContainer.AutoRegisterInternal has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MethodMap.Create (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • MethodMap.Create (cognitive 18) src/Memstate.Core/Proxying/MethodMap.cs:18 — MethodMap.Create has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×1
  • FileTooLong: Configuration/TinyIoC.cs src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:0 — FileTooLong — 1293 lines, 0 methods.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3728 — src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3728-3745 | src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3752-3768
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/Log4NetLogProvider.cs:87 — src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/Log4NetLogProvider.cs:87-99 | src/Memstate.Core/LibLog/5.0.8/LogProviders/NLogLogProvider.cs:97-108
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3604 — src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3604-3613 | src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3619-3628
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Memstate.Runner/Commands/ReadBenchmarkCommand.cs:35 — src/Memstate.Runner/Commands/ReadBenchmarkCommand.cs:35-40 | src/Memstate.Runner/Commands/WriteBenchmarkCommand.cs:39-44
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. Commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces (anywhere in the repo), or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
Recommendation — 24 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · The document contains only placeholder text · ×5
  • The document contains only placeholder text: 'configuration documentation coming. (tbd)'. src/Memstate.Docs.GettingStarted/Configuration/readme.md — Replace the placeholder with actual documentation on how to configure the Memstate engine, including connection strings, memory limits, and serialization settings.
  • The document contains only placeholder text: 'modelling documentation coming. (tbd)'. src/Memstate.Docs.GettingStarted/Modelling/readme.md — Provide a guide on how to define domain models, entities, and relationships within Memstate.
  • The document contains only placeholder text: 'built in models documentation coming (tbd)'. src/Memstate.Docs.GettingStarted/BuiltInModels/readme.md — List and describe the built-in model types supported by the framework.
  • The document contains only placeholder text: 'security documentation coming. (tbd)'. src/Memstate.Docs.GettingStarted/Security/readme.md — Explain how to configure security, authentication, and authorization within Memstate.
  • The document contains only placeholder text: 'client api documentation coming. (tbd)'. src/Memstate.Docs.GettingStarted/ClientAPI/readme.md — Document the Client API, including how to connect to the server and execute commands/queries.
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×3
  • redundant comment src/Memstate.Core/Batcher.cs:50 — "Wait for an item to arrive" — Remove. The code likely contains a loop or await that makes this obvious.
  • redundant comment src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/IniFile.cs:24 — "Skip comments and empty lines" — Remove. The code likely contains a condition checking for whitespace or comments.
  • redundant comment src/Memstate.Core/Tcp/MemstateServer.cs:103 — "TODO: Consider using MessageProcessor." — Move to a code comment or issue tracker.
D11 · Test Reliability · Test reliability not included · ×1
  • Test reliability not included — Test reliability not included — no test tier completed within its budget.
D18 · Solution Shape · Shell project · ×1
  • Shell project: Memstate.All src/Memstate.All/Memstate.All.csproj — `Memstate.All` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — The codebase is large and multi-project, indicating distinct modules that require explicit boundary declarations to assess cross-boundary coupling. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D24 · Comment Value · misleading comment · ×1
  • misleading comment src/Memstate.Core/Proxying/OperationInfo.cs:81 — "TODO: Log the exception." — This is a task, not a comment. If the code doesn't log, the comment is misleading about the current state.
D25 · ADR Conformance · no ADRs to check · ×1
  • no ADRs to check — No ADRs found, so conformance can't be assessed.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Split Memstate.Core · ×1
  • Split Memstate.Core — With 11,778 LoC and 94 public types spanning 11 namespaces, the project likely covers multiple distinct responsibilities rather than a single focused area. Suggested: by namespace: split the 11 namespaces into 3-4 logical modules based on domain boundaries.
D27 · Navigability · Navigability unmeasured · ×1
  • Navigability unmeasured — symbol resolution incomplete — 88 % of sampled invocations could not be resolved to a symbol (the workspace likely loaded without all references) — the indirection fractions would be computed over an unrepresentative slice, so navigability is reported as not measured rather than a misleading score.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1
  • 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 solution
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×1
  • Low IaC: DS-0026 Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1
  • 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.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Not applicable · ×1
  • 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.
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy · Not applicable · ×1
  • 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.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1
  • 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.
D7 · Architectural Integrity · No checkable ADRs to assess · ×1
  • No checkable ADRs to assess — No architecture decision records were found and the project graph is acyclic, so architectural integrity could not be assessed. Add ADRs (with `enforcement: analyzer|test`) to make the architecture's rules checkable.
Info — 36 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality · Skipped (documented) · ×8
  • Skipped (documented): Expires src/Memstate.Test/Models/Redis/ExpirationTests.cs:14 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Expiration not yet implemented
  • Skipped (documented): ExpiresMultiple src/Memstate.Test/Models/Redis/ExpirationTests.cs:31 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Expiration not implemented
  • Skipped (documented): PurgeTimer src/Memstate.Test/Models/Redis/ExpirationTests.cs:74 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Expiration not implemented
  • Skipped (documented): When_stream_is_blocked_cancelling_throws_a_TaskCancelledException src/Memstate.Test/PacketTests.cs:63 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Doesn't terminate
  • Skipped (documented): ThrowsExceptionOnYieldQuery src/Memstate.Test/Proxy/ProxyTest.cs:49 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Isolation is yet to be implemented
  • Skipped (documented): QueryResultsAreCloned src/Memstate.Test/Proxy/ProxyTest.cs:63 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Isolation is yet to be implemented
  • Skipped (documented): ResultIsIsolated_attribute_is_recognized src/Memstate.Test/Proxy/ProxyTest.cs:82 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Isolation is yet to be designed
  • Skipped (documented): Query_result_is_cloned src/Memstate.Test/Proxy/ProxyTest.cs:92 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Isolation is yet to be designed and implemented
D17 · Explicit Debt · Justified suppression · ×4
  • Justified suppression src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3443 — empty catch (MethodAccessException) — narrow/filtered/commented, treated as intentional
  • Justified suppression src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:3482 — empty catch (MethodAccessException) — narrow/filtered/commented, treated as intentional
  • Justified suppression src/Memstate.Core/Configuration/TinyIoC.cs:4122 — empty catch (TinyIoCResolutionException) — narrow/filtered/commented, treated as intentional
  • Justified suppression src/Memstate.Core/EngineBuilder.cs:66 — empty catch — narrow/filtered/commented, treated as intentional
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×1
  • Mock framework: FakeItEasy — Memstate.Test references FakeItEasy.
D14 · License Compliance · Licenses scanned · ×1
  • Licenses scanned — 25 packages scanned; 2 distinct SPDX licenses.
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.
D18 · Solution Shape · Memstate.JsonNet (Production) · ×1
  • Memstate.JsonNet (Production) src/Memstate.JsonNet/Memstate.JsonNet.csproj — 2 .cs files, 119 LoC (104 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Memstate.Host (Production) · ×1
  • Memstate.Host (Production) src/Memstate.Host/Memstate.Host.csproj — 6 .cs files, 218 LoC (178 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Memstate.Test (Test) · ×1
  • Memstate.Test (Test) src/Memstate.Test/Memstate.Test.csproj — 40 .cs files, 3091 LoC (2565 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · System.Test (Test) · ×1
  • System.Test (Test) src/System.Test/System.Test.csproj — 6 .cs files, 504 LoC (399 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Memstate.Benchmarks (Production) · ×1
  • Memstate.Benchmarks (Production) src/Memstate.Benchmarks/Memstate.Benchmarks.csproj — 3 .cs files, 126 LoC (96 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Memstate.Docs.GettingStarted (Test) · ×1
  • Memstate.Docs.GettingStarted (Test) src/Memstate.Docs.GettingStarted/Memstate.Docs.GettingStarted.csproj — 24 .cs files, 658 LoC (524 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Memstate.Core (Production) · ×1
  • Memstate.Core (Production) src/Memstate.Core/Memstate.Core.csproj — 154 .cs files, 13902 LoC (9838 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Memstate.Wire (Production) · ×1
  • Memstate.Wire (Production) src/Memstate.Wire/Memstate.Wire.csproj — 1 .cs files, 34 LoC (29 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Memstate.MsConfig (Production) · ×1
  • Memstate.MsConfig (Production) src/Memstate.MsConfig/Memstate.MsConfig.csproj — 1 .cs files, 34 LoC (28 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Memstate.AppMetrics (Production) · ×1
  • Memstate.AppMetrics (Production) src/Memstate.AppMetrics/Memstate.AppMetrics.csproj — 3 .cs files, 192 LoC (161 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Memstate.Runner (Production) · ×1
  • Memstate.Runner (Production) src/Memstate.Runner/Memstate.Runner.csproj — 8 .cs files, 502 LoC (369 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Memstate.All (Production) · ×1
  • Memstate.All (Production) src/Memstate.All/Memstate.All.csproj — 0 .cs files, 0 LoC (0 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Trello.Core (Production) · ×1
  • Trello.Core (Production) src/Trello.Core/Trello.Core.csproj — 16 .cs files, 331 LoC (295 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Trello.Test (Test) · ×1
  • Trello.Test (Test) src/Trello.Test/Trello.Test.csproj — 3 .cs files, 100 LoC (88 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Trello.Web (Production) · ×1
  • Trello.Web (Production) src/Trello.Web/Trello.Web.csproj — 7 .cs files, 274 LoC (236 significant)
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×1
  • XML-doc coverage: Memstate.All src/Memstate.All/Memstate.All.csproj — Memstate.All: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
D9 · Test Distribution · Unit tests · ×1
  • Unit tests — 130 unit test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · Integration tests · ×1
  • Integration tests — 0 integration test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · BDD tests · ×1
  • BDD tests — 0 BDD test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · E2E tests · ×1
  • E2E tests — 0 end-to-end test method(s).

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 — 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 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 019ee1d7-d1b0-7fb5-b6b7-83f9dcf4c931 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 15 · Warnings: 53 · Recommendations: 24 · Info: 36 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 19-06-2026 @ 21:44 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