Cronus — Watchdog Audit

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.

Elders/Cronus is in a workable but fragile state (55%). It is not in crisis, but it carries material risk that makes change slower and incidents harder to contain if left unaddressed.

It is strongest in Security (91%) — its security and compliance posture is in good shape. Architecture (82%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Maturity (49%) — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent. Readiness (52%) is the next concern — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Expand the README with getting-started (Documentation (README)); Record significant decisions one document per decision (Architecture documentation); 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness (Knowledge Freshness).

For scale: Small (~12,337 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Security foundation (91%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 53% Adequate · gated by X5 Architecture 82% Adequate · gated by D26 Maturity 49% Weak · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 52% Adequate · gated by P10 Security 91% ★ Exemplary Performance 74% Strong

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.

Maturity 49% · 46% weightReadiness 52% · 25% weightCode Health 53% · 14% weightPerformance 74% · 8% weightArchitecture 82% · 4% weightSecurity 91% · 2% weight

No single dominant problem — the weakest areas are close, so progress on any of them moves the score.

Code composition — where the lines go

Business logic 19%Plumbing 56%Tests 25%

New since the last scan (1+)

1 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-29) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

ED5 · Non-idempotent mutation: AutoUpdates.AutoUpdateSaga.HandleAsync src/Elders.Cronus/AutoUpdates/AutoUpdateSaga.cs

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 — €7,100–€36,000

Cost to rebuild	€7,100–€36,000 (0.1–0.2 person-years (119–376 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.8× (at 55% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · 45% boilerplate · 30% straight-line · 25% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€21,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 49% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.2) — service/app, CQRS × a 0.8× 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.

Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.

+4.9 pts · Low effort · Knowledge Freshness

Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.

+5.9 pts · Medium effort · Documentation (README)

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).

+5.9 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk

This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 49%. 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 (12,337 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 49%

→ Direct remediation budget at Maturity 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: Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map. The rest can wait behind it.

Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort

→ Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.

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.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

33 modules, 86 dependencies — 2 dependency cycles, shown as the red cell(s) above the diagonal. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

At a glance — Code Health · 53% · Adequate · gated by X5

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 9.4 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 8.5 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.8 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 8.2 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 10.0 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 9.9 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 7.1 X4 · Repo Structured logging 7.5

The Bad

X1 · Repo Async correctness 6.3 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 5.5 X3 · Repo Exception handling 6.7

The Ugly

X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 2.0

At a glance — Architecture · 82% · Adequate · gated by D26

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 8.7 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 8.4 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 9.8 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 8.9 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0

The Bad

AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 5.9

The Ugly

D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 3.3

At a glance — Maturity · 49% · Weak · 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 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Ugly

D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 1.6 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 4.7 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 52% · Adequate · gated by P10

The Good

D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 8.8 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 9.0

The Bad

P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

The Ugly

P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 2.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 4.0

At a glance — Security · 91% · Exemplary

The Good

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 8.4 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 8.8

At a glance — Performance · 74% · Strong

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 9.5

The Bad

PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.9 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 6.5

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 category	Findings	Severity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	2	High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection	1	High / Critical

Roadmap

First, expand the README with a getting-started guide, architecture overview, and project map to improve onboarding. Next, document significant architectural decisions in a dedicated folder to preserve context and consequences. Then, resolve dormant codebase findings to ensure knowledge freshness. Finally, restrict the public API by making types internal by default to protect consumers from breaking changes. Lastly, integrate a static security analysis step into the CI pipeline to fail the build on security regressions.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.	+4.9 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness
Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.	+5.9 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).	+5.9 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Resolve the 2 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ErrorContext.cs, ProgressTracker.cs.	+2.8 pts	Low	Explicit Debt
Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.	+4.4 pts	Medium	Library API & versioning
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.	+4.4 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.	+4.4 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback
Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.	+4.4 pts	Medium	Release Hygiene

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 51 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 37% mixed · 63% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/ProjectionVersions.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/ProjectionRepository.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/When_resolve_scoped_component_out_of_scope.cs	6.5	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Elders.Cronus/MessageProcessing/CronusPublisher.cs	6.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemory/InMemoryPublisher.cs	6.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemoryEventStoreSuite/When_loading_aggregate_root_with_entity_from_event_store.cs	6.9	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.cs	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.RunJobAsync (cyclomatic 17)
src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Commands/RegisterProjection.cs	7.2	Mixed	Change Coupling: Change coupling: RegisterProjection.cs ↔ ProjectionVersionRequested.cs
.github/dependabot.yml	7.2	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: dependabot-missing-cooldown
src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/InMemory/InMemoryProjectionStore.cs	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Elders.Cronus/EventStore/Integrity/EventStreamIntegrityPolicy.cs	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemoryEventStoreSuite/When_loading_events_for_replay.cs	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Elders.Cronus/EventStore/AutoUpdater/AutoUpdaterState.cs	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Elders.Cronus/Hosting/ICronusStartup.cs	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs	7.4	Mixed	Change Coupling: Change coupling: NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs ↔ ProjectionVersionRequestTimedout.cs
src/Elders.Cronus/MessageProcessing/ErrorContext.cs	7.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/ProgressTracker.cs	7.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjection_Job.cs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: RebuildProjection_Job.RunJobAsync (cyclomatic 18)
src/Elders.Cronus/Hosting/CronusHost.cs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: CronusHost.Start (cyclomatic 16)
src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemory/InMemoryIndexStore.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode

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. 48 of 50 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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 — 50 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D21D26D27D28D29D30D34D35AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6AX8ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6PF1PF2PF3X1X2X3X4X5

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

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, 83 of 94 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.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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.

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
jscpd	Code duplication	—	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.302	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.302	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019fc7fc-c4e7-75f0-9bd9-049f08e66c4a.

The exact command behind every deep-scan dimension — tool, version, invocation and retained raw output — is in Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail.

Run transparency — what happened this run

What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.

D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.

Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.

Per-dimension blind spots

For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
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.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
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 (3): D21, ED5, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.4 / 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

5 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was RebuildProjection_Job.RunJobAsync at 18.

RebuildProjection_Job.RunJobAsync (cyclomatic 18)src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjection_Job.cs:60

ProjectionVersions.Add (cyclomatic 17)src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/ProjectionVersions.cs:58

RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.RunJobAsync (cyclomatic 17)src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.cs:64

CronusHost.Start (cyclomatic 16)src/Elders.Cronus/Hosting/CronusHost.cs:187

CronusHost.Stop (cyclomatic 16)src/Elders.Cronus/Hosting/CronusHost.cs:206

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.5 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

7 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was CronusOptionsProviderBase.TryValidateObjectRecursive at 36.

CronusOptionsProviderBase.TryValidateObjectRecursive (cognitive 36)src/Elders.Cronus/Hosting/CronusOptionsProviderBase.cs:69

RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.RunJobAsync (cognitive 32)src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.cs:64

ProjectionRepository.SaveAsync (cognitive 29)src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/ProjectionRepository.cs:38

RebuildProjection_Job.RunJobAsync (cognitive 27)src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjection_Job.cs:60

RetryableOperation.TryExecute (cognitive 21)src/Elders.Cronus/Userfull/RetryableOperation.cs:32

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

What to do

Resolve the 1 CronusOptionsProviderBase.TryValidateObjectRecursive (cognitive 36) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with CronusOptionsProviderBase.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.RunJobAsync (cognitive 32) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ProjectionRepository.SaveAsync (cognitive 29) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ProjectionRepository.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

5 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×3src/Elders.Cronus/Discoveries/ProjectionsDiscovery.cs:19

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2)src/Elders.Cronus/EventStore/Index/RebuildIndex_MessageCounter_Job.cs:87

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2)src/Elders.Cronus/MessageProcessing/ApplicationServiceSubscriberWorkflow.cs:25

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling8.7 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: Elders.Cronus(net8.0)

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 59 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 12 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.

Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

54 deducted debt markers + 1 dead symbols across 12337 LoC (0.9/KLoC) → score 8.2.

EmptyCatchBlock · ×2src/Elders.Cronus/MessageProcessing/ErrorContext.cs:45

CommentedOutCode · ×38src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemory/InMemoryIndexStore.cs:1

TodoComment · ×13src/Elders.Cronus/AutoUpdates/AutoUpdateSaga.cs:11

HackCommentsrc/Elders.Cronus.Tests/Migrations/TestModel/TestEventStorePlayer.cs:30

Dead code: Class1src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/Performance/Class1.cs:3

What to do

Resolve the 2 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ErrorContext.cs, ProgressTracker.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 38 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with When_resolve_scoped_component_out_of_scope.cs (6), CronusPublisher.cs (4), InMemoryPublisher.cs (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (38 warning-level).
Resolve the 13 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with AutoUpdaterState.cs (2), ICronusStartup.cs (2), ProjectionVersions.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D18 · Solution Shape10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

6 projects, 840 source files, 16001 hand-written lines of code (12337 production / 3664 test), 4 inter-project edges.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion3.3 / 10Weak✓ 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 3.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 3 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split Elders.Cronus

What to do

Resolve the 1 Split Elders.Cronus 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

73 % of calls cross a namespace and 15 % go through an interface, but 99 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

What to do

Improve Navigability — currently 8.4/10. — 73 % of calls cross a namespace and 15 % go through an interface, but 99 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

High: dependabot-missing-cooldown.github/dependabot.yml:8detected by semgrep finding

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0 · ×2detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness1.6 / 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 1.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

54 of 64 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Elders.Cronus/FaultHandling/RetryPolicy.cs.

Dormant codebase

What to do

Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs↔ProjectionVersionRequestTimedout.cs 70%; NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs↔ProjectionVersionRequested.cs 70%; ProjectionVersionRequestTimedout.cs↔ProjectionVersionRequested.cs 69%

Change coupling: NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs ↔ ProjectionVersionRequestTimedout.cs · ×10src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX1 · Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.

Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition8.9 / 10Strong✓ 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).

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX2 · Stateful singletons5.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

`CronusHeartbeat` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (options, tenants; e.g. `options` at line 63). — CronusHeartbeat.cs:12
`CronusBooter` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (tenantOptions; e.g. `tenantOptions` at line 59). — CronusBooter.cs:11
`DefaultCronusContextFactory` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (tenantsOptions; e.g. `tenantsOptions` at line 80). — CronusContextFactory.cs:15

What to do

Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED5 · Idempotency8.8 / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

`AutoUpdates.AutoUpdateSaga.HandleAsync` mutates persistent state (an event publish) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — AutoUpdateSaga.cs:21
`Versioning.ProjectionBuilder.HandleAsync` mutates persistent state (an event publish) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — ProjectionBuilder.cs:104

What to do

Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.

Do you agree with this assessment?

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×25) — MissingAggregateRootAtomicAction.cs:11, MissingAggregateRootAtomicAction.cs:12, MissingAggregateRootAtomicAction.cs:14, …

What to do

Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`MyLogger` has 3 unfinished members out of 4 — a scaffolded type that was never implemented. — LoggingBenchmark.cs:52
`BeginScope` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — LoggingBenchmark.cs:54
`IsEnabled` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. — LoggingBenchmark.cs:55
`LogCore` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — LoggingBenchmark.cs:59
`PingAsync` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. — NoClusterOperations.cs:8
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×10) — LoggingBenchmark.cs:5, Program.cs:4, Program.cs:5, …

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)4.7 / 10Weak✓ 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.

The root README is 119 words — likely missing build/run/architecture context.

What to do

Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.
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 3 of 3 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.

What to do

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.

Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P10 · Library API & versioning2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

770/810 types (95%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.
No <Version>/<VersionPrefix>/GitVersion/MinVer detected. A published library needs explicit semantic versioning so consumers can reason about breaking changes.

What to do

Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.
Stamp a semantic version (csproj <Version> or GitVersion/MinVer) and follow semver for breaking changes.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

What to do

Add a health-check endpoint (AddHealthChecks/MapHealthChecks) so orchestrators and load balancers can probe liveness/readiness.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step.

What to do

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

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

What to do

Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 22 use(s) across 12,437 production line(s) (~1.8/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness6.3 / 10Adequate✓ 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()` wastes a thread and, if the task needs a context this one is holding, deadlocks. `Dispose()` returns void by contract, so it cannot simply `await`: signal the work to stop first (cancel its token, set its stop flag) so the wait is short, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task cannot hang shutdown, and — where callers can use it — add an awaitable teardown (`DisposeAsync`/`StopAsync`) beside the synchronous one and let `Dispose()` remain the bounded fallback. — CronusHost.cs:172
Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process. — ProjectionsStartup.cs:17

What to do

Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation5.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Only 9/37 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×25) — DangerZoneExecutor.cs:26, AggregateRepository.cs:67, RebuildIndex_MessageCounter_Job.cs:86, …

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×2) — ErrorContext.cs:45, ProgressTracker.cs:170

What to do

Swallowed exception (empty catch)

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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.

Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it. — RebuildIndex_EventToAggregateRootId_Job.cs:43

What to do

Interpolated log message defeats structured logging

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

0/2 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). 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 `!`.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	53%	Adequate — gated by X5	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	82%	Adequate — gated by D26	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	49%	Weak — gated by D34, M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	52%	Adequate — gated by P10	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	91%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Performance	74%	Strong	Solid.

Not included — 48 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
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.
D10 Test Quality — ~4032 lines of test code exist on disk but weren't loaded from the analyzed solution (excluded from the .sln, or co-located/using a test attribute not loaded here), so test quality couldn't be assessed. Include the tests in the analyzed solution to enable this check.
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Data compliance (PII/GDPR) was not assessed in this scan — no ruleset is currently available for it. This says nothing about how this repository handles personal data, in either direction.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
D9 Test Distribution — Tests outside the analyzed solution
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (6 aggregate root(s) (AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot))
ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 12 event handler(s); 16 CQRS handler(s)
ES1 Event Sourcing — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 6 projection(s); an append-only event-store seam (IEventStore/Append-of-events)
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
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 — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.

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 — 5 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×2

EmptyCatchBlock src/Elders.Cronus/MessageProcessing/ErrorContext.cs:45 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/ProgressTracker.cs:170 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×2

High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0 — System.Net.Http 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 — System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · High · ×1

High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:8 — This Dependabot configuration does not set a cooldown period. Newly published packages can be malicious or unstable. Add a `cooldown` block with `default-days: 7` to each `package-ecosystem` entry under `updates` to wait 7 days before proposing updates to newly published package versions. Reference: https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/dependabot/dependabot-version-updates/configuration-options-for-the-dependabot.yml-file#cooldown. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule reporting a POLICY that is absent or weaker than its recommendation, not an exploitable defect. Confirm whether the current setting is a deliberate decision for this repository — and apply the change where it is not; where it is (a policy your release process already enforces elsewhere, or one this repository has consciously opted out of), record the decision and leave the configuration as it is.

Warning — 85 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×38

CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemory/InMemoryIndexStore.cs:1 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemoryEventStoreSuite/When_loading_aggregate_root_with_entity_from_event_store.cs:30 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus/FaultHandling/Strategies/ExponentialBackoff.cs:63 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus/MessageProcessing/CronusPublisher.cs:11 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/InMemory/InMemoryProjectionStore.cs:42 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemory/InMemoryPublisher.cs:1 — 7 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemory/InMemoryPublisher.cs:15 — 7 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemory/InMemoryPublisher.cs:72 — 7 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemoryEventStoreSuite/When_loading_aggregate_root_with_entity_from_event_store.cs:1 — 7 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/Projections/When_projection_version_with_status_building_is_outside_of_the_timebox.cs:74 — 7 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemory/InMemoryPublisher.cs:41 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemoryLock/When_checking_a_locked_resource.cs:1 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemoryLock/When_checking_for_expired_locked_resource.cs:1 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemoryLock/When_locking_resource.cs:1 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemoryLock/When_unlocking_a_locked_resource.cs:1 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemoryLock/When_unlocking_a_specific_locked_resource.cs:1 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/When_resolve_scoped_component_out_of_scope.cs:1 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus/EventStore/Integrity/EventStreamIntegrityPolicy.cs:44 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus/EventStore/Integrity/EventStreamIntegrityPolicy.cs:51 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/InMemory/InMemoryProjectionStore.cs:1 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/ProjectionVersion.cs:36 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/InMemoryProjectionVersionStore.cs:10 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemoryEventStoreSuite/When_loading_aggregate_root_with_entity_from_event_store.cs:26 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemoryEventStoreSuite/When_loading_events_for_replay.cs:33 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/InMemoryLock/When_checking_a_not_locked_resource.cs:1 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
+ 13 more in this group — see findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×13

TodoComment src/Elders.Cronus/AutoUpdates/AutoUpdateSaga.cs:11 — // TODO: in future we can have scheduled messages — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Elders.Cronus/Discoveries/CronusHostDiscovery.cs:42 — // TODO: Check if this is alrady registered in the foreach above. If yes we can remove this line. Elase we have to figure out what is going on — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Elders.Cronus/EventStore/AutoUpdater/AutoUpdater.cs:56 — // TODO: failed status? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Elders.Cronus/EventStore/AutoUpdater/AutoUpdaterState.cs:72 — // TODO: think for retries? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Elders.Cronus/EventStore/AutoUpdater/AutoUpdaterState.cs:80 — // TODO: in future we might execute in parallel — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Elders.Cronus/EventStore/Players/ReplayPublicEvents_Job.cs:48 — //TODO: Document which headers are essential or make another ctor for CronusMessage with byte[] — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Elders.Cronus/Hosting/ICronusStartup.cs:8 — // TODO: Make this async — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Elders.Cronus/Hosting/ICronusStartup.cs:15 — //TODO: also make this async :) kali — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Elders.Cronus/Hosting/SingletonPerTenantContainer.cs:29 — // TODO: mynkow — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/ProjectionRepository.cs:44 — // TODO: inspect the type if it implements IProjectionDefinition — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/ProjectionVersions.cs:152 — // TODO: This will crash with null ref — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/ProjectionVersions.cs:164 — // TODO: This will crash with null ref — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/ProjectionVersionManager.cs:94 — // TODO: check if the timebox really has expired LOL :), Believe me, do it — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×10

Change coupling: NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs ↔ ProjectionVersionRequestTimedout.cs src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs — `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs` and `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/ProjectionVersionRequestTimedout.cs` change together 70% of the time (7 of the 10 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs ↔ ProjectionVersionRequested.cs src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs — `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs` and `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/ProjectionVersionRequested.cs` change together 70% of the time (7 of the 10 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: ProjectionVersionRequestTimedout.cs ↔ ProjectionVersionRequested.cs src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/ProjectionVersionRequestTimedout.cs — `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/ProjectionVersionRequestTimedout.cs` and `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/ProjectionVersionRequested.cs` change together 69% of the time (9 of the 13 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: FixProjectionVersion.cs ↔ RegisterProjection.cs src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Commands/FixProjectionVersion.cs — `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Commands/FixProjectionVersion.cs` and `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Commands/RegisterProjection.cs` change together 58% of the time (7 of the 12 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: RegisterProjection.cs ↔ ProjectionVersionRequested.cs src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Commands/RegisterProjection.cs — `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Commands/RegisterProjection.cs` and `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/ProjectionVersionRequested.cs` change together 58% of the time (7 of the 12 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: RegisterProjection.cs ↔ ProjectionVersionRequestTimedout.cs src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Commands/RegisterProjection.cs — `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Commands/RegisterProjection.cs` and `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/ProjectionVersionRequestTimedout.cs` change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: RegisterProjection.cs ↔ ProjectionBuilder.cs src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Commands/RegisterProjection.cs — `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Commands/RegisterProjection.cs` and `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Handlers/ProjectionBuilder.cs` change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: ProjectionBuilder.cs ↔ ProjectionVersionManagerState.cs src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Handlers/ProjectionBuilder.cs — `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Handlers/ProjectionBuilder.cs` and `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/ProjectionVersionManagerState.cs` change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs ↔ ProjectionBuilder.cs src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs — `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs` and `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Handlers/ProjectionBuilder.cs` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: RegisterProjection.cs ↔ NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Commands/RegisterProjection.cs — `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Commands/RegisterProjection.cs` and `src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Versioning/Events/NewProjectionVersionIsNowLive.cs` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Elders.Cronus/Discoveries/ProjectionsDiscovery.cs:19 — src/Elders.Cronus/Discoveries/ProjectionsDiscovery.cs:19-30 | src/Elders.Cronus/Discoveries/ProjectionsDiscovery.cs:66-76 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Elders.Cronus/Discoveries/ProjectionsDiscovery.cs:19` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.cs:74 — src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.cs:74-84 | src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjection_Job.cs:77-87 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.cs:193 — src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.cs:193-203 | src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjection_Job.cs:176-186 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RebuildProjection_Job.RunJobAsync (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

RebuildProjection_Job.RunJobAsync (cyclomatic 18) src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjection_Job.cs:60 — RebuildProjection_Job.RunJobAsync has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ProjectionVersions.Add (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

ProjectionVersions.Add (cyclomatic 17) src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/ProjectionVersions.cs:58 — ProjectionVersions.Add has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.RunJobAsync (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.RunJobAsync (cyclomatic 17) src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.cs:64 — RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.RunJobAsync has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 11 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CronusHost.Start (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

CronusHost.Start (cyclomatic 16) src/Elders.Cronus/Hosting/CronusHost.cs:187 — CronusHost.Start has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CronusHost.Stop (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

CronusHost.Stop (cyclomatic 16) src/Elders.Cronus/Hosting/CronusHost.cs:206 — CronusHost.Stop has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.

D17 · Explicit Debt · HackComment · ×1

HackComment src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/Migrations/TestModel/TestEventStorePlayer.cs:30 — // hack — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.

D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×1

Dead code: Class1 src/Elders.Cronus.Tests/Performance/Class1.cs:3 — NamedType Class1 — no references found in solution.

D19 · Documentation Quality · LLM evaluation failed · ×1

LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.findings[1] | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 1206.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CronusOptionsProviderBase.TryValidateObjectRecursive (cognitive 36) · ×1

CronusOptionsProviderBase.TryValidateObjectRecursive (cognitive 36) src/Elders.Cronus/Hosting/CronusOptionsProviderBase.cs:69 — CronusOptionsProviderBase.TryValidateObjectRecursive has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Of this number, 35 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.RunJobAsync (cognitive 32) · ×1

RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.RunJobAsync (cognitive 32) src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.cs:64 — RebuildProjectionSequentially_Job.RunJobAsync has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 14 of the 32 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 99). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ProjectionRepository.SaveAsync (cognitive 29) · ×1

ProjectionRepository.SaveAsync (cognitive 29) src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/ProjectionRepository.cs:38 — ProjectionRepository.SaveAsync has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RebuildProjection_Job.RunJobAsync (cognitive 27) · ×1

RebuildProjection_Job.RunJobAsync (cognitive 27) src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/RebuildProjection_Job.cs:60 — RebuildProjection_Job.RunJobAsync has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RetryableOperation.TryExecute (cognitive 21) · ×1

RetryableOperation.TryExecute (cognitive 21) src/Elders.Cronus/Userfull/RetryableOperation.cs:32 — RetryableOperation.TryExecute has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RetryPolicy.ExecuteActionAsync (cognitive 20) · ×1

RetryPolicy.ExecuteActionAsync (cognitive 20) src/Elders.Cronus/FaultHandling/RetryPolicy.cs:149 — RetryPolicy.ExecuteActionAsync has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ProjectionRepository.SaveAsync (cognitive 20) · ×1

ProjectionRepository.SaveAsync (cognitive 20) src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/ProjectionRepository.cs:104 — ProjectionRepository.SaveAsync has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.

D24 · Comment Value · LLM evaluation failed · ×1

LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.notable[4].suggestion | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 917.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Elders.Cronus/EventStore/Index/RebuildIndex_MessageCounter_Job.cs:87 — src/Elders.Cronus/EventStore/Index/RebuildIndex_MessageCounter_Job.cs:87-93 | src/Elders.Cronus/Projections/Rebuilding/ProjectionVersionHelper.cs:119-125 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Elders.Cronus/EventStore/Index/RebuildIndex_MessageCounter_Job.cs:87` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Elders.Cronus/MessageProcessing/ApplicationServiceSubscriberWorkflow.cs:25 — src/Elders.Cronus/MessageProcessing/ApplicationServiceSubscriberWorkflow.cs:25-30 | src/Elders.Cronus/MessageProcessing/EventStoreIndexSubscriberWorkflow.cs:31-36 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Elders.Cronus/MessageProcessing/ApplicationServiceSubscriberWorkflow.cs:25` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: Elders.Cronus(net8.0) — Elders.Cronus(net8.0): abstractness 0.26, instability 0.00, distance 0.74 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — analyzer environment — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the analyzer environment could not build/run the test suite (a target framework / SDK band or targeting pack the analyzer image doesn't carry). This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. We track the analyzer-image gap so it can be closed; in the meantime, no coverage collector was found in your CI either, so there is no existing report to hand us — add a collector to your test run and commit (or publish into the working tree) its Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov output, and real coverage will be read.

D9 · Test Distribution · Tests outside the analyzed solution · ×1

Tests outside the analyzed solution — 1 .NET test project(s) exist on disk but aren't in the .NET solution that was analyzed (e.g. Elders.Cronus.Tests.Sanity.csproj), so they aren't built or gated with the production code and can't be assessed here. If this .NET code is part of the product, add those projects to the solution or point Watchdog at a solution that includes them; if it is a client/compatibility harness beside a product written in another language, nothing is wrong here and this row can be ignored.

Recommendation — 3 finding(s)

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1

Bounded contexts not declared — At 12337 LoC spread over 6 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.

D26 · Project Cohesion · Split Elders.Cronus · ×1

Split Elders.Cronus — A 12k-LoC library whose 32 namespaces are all cron job and scheduling code scattered over unrelated types. Suggested: by namespace: CronJobEngine, SchedulerRegistry, TimeWindowParser

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1

Dormant codebase — 54 of 64 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 54 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.

Info — 1 finding(s)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1

No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .	1	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list src/Elders.Cronus.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	2	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — Data compliance (PII/GDPR) was not assessed in this scan — no ruleset is currently available for it. This says nothing about how this repository handles personal data, in either direction.	0	—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.	0	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner: not applicable — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—

Run 019fc7fc-c4e7-75f0-9bd9-049f08e66c4a · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 53% · Adequate · gated by X5

At a glance — Architecture · 82% · Adequate · gated by D26

At a glance — Maturity · 49% · Weak · gated by D34, M2

At a glance — Readiness · 52% · Adequate · gated by P10

At a glance — Security · 91% · Exemplary

At a glance — Performance · 74% · Strong

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts