Public report — GameFramework, published 5 Aug 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdogby Canine Development 05-08-2026 @ 16:14 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

EllanJiang/GameFramework

no automated testsdormant codebase
42% Weak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
upper third — near Adequate
Security 95% Exemplary Code Health 87% Strong Performance 70% Strong Architecture 68% Adequate Maturity 42% Weak Readiness 23% Critical

Medium · 52,315 LoC · 1 projects · rebuild ~0.3 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (23%)

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

37/41dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 4 LLM-assisted, advisory
68findings with an exact file:lineof 78 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
41/96dimensions across the health lenses52315 LoC · 1 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.

EllanJiang/GameFramework carries serious gaps (42%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.

It is strongest in Security (95%) — its security and compliance posture is in good shape. Code Health (87%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (23%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Maturity (42%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage (Code Coverage); 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution (Test Distribution).

For scale: Medium (~52,315 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.3 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Security foundation (95%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 87% Strong Architecture 68% Adequate · gated by D26, AX5 Maturity 42% Weak · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 23% ⚠ Critical · gated by D8, D9, P1, P3 Security 95% ★ Exemplary Performance 70% 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.
Readiness 23% · 46% weightMaturity 42% · 25% weightArchitecture 68% · 14% weightPerformance 70% · 8% weightCode Health 87% · 4% weightSecurity 95% · 2% weight

Raise Readiness 23 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 42 → ~58.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 20%Plumbing 80%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €15,000–€71,000
Cost to rebuild€15,000–€71,000 (0.1–0.4 person-years (242–744 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityLow — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 42% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeMedium · 62% boilerplate · 18% straight-line · 20% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€43,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 23% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Low (×0.9) — library/CLI × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
+15.9 pts · Low effort · Code Coverage
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
+15.9 pts · Low effort · Test Distribution
3
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
+17.4 pts · Medium effort · CI/CD gates

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 23%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.3 person-years rebuild (52,315 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 23%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

20 modules, 33 dependencies — 1 dependency cycle, 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.)

GameFramework.Download…eFramework.FileSystem…eFramework.ObjectPoolGameFramework.ResourceGameFrameworkGameFramework.ConfigGameFramework.DataNode…meFramework.DataTableGameFramework.DebuggerGameFramework.EntityGameFramework.EventGameFramework.Fsm…ramework.LocalizationGameFramework.NetworkGameFramework.SceneGameFramework.SettingGameFramework.SoundGameFramework.UI…eFramework.WebRequest…meFramework.ProcedureGameFramework.Download1…eFramework.FileSystem2…eFramework.ObjectPool3GameFramework.Resource4GameFramework5GameFramework.Config6GameFramework.DataNode7…meFramework.DataTable8GameFramework.Debugger9GameFramework.Entity10GameFramework.Event11GameFramework.Fsm12…ramework.Localization13GameFramework.Network14GameFramework.Scene15GameFramework.Setting16GameFramework.Sound17GameFramework.UI18…eFramework.WebRequest19…meFramework.Procedure2018251046365296311154935299571484491315

At a glance — Code Health · 87% · Strong

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 8.6 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 8.8 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.9 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 10.0 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 8.0 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 7.3
The Bad
D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 6.8

At a glance — Architecture · 68% · Adequate · gated by D26, AX5

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.9 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 9.9 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.9 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 8.3
The Ugly
D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 0.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 4.5 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 3.0

At a glance — Maturity · 42% · Weak · gated by D34, M2

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

At a glance — Readiness · 23% · Critical · gated by D8, D9, P1, P3

The Good
D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0
The Bad
P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0
The Ugly
D8 · .NET / C# Code Coverage 0.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 95% · Exemplary

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 9.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0

At a glance — Performance · 70% · Strong

The Good
PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0
The Bad
PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.2

Roadmap

First, establish a CI/CD pipeline to automatically build and test every change. Next, address the single missing automated test to improve code coverage and test distribution. Then, implement a changelog to track release history. Finally, document significant architectural decisions in a dedicated folder to preserve context and consequences.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.+15.9 ptsLowCode Coverage
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.+15.9 ptsLowTest Distribution
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.+17.4 ptsMediumCI/CD gates
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.+15.9 ptsMediumRelease Hygiene
Resolve the 3 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with GameFrameworkLog.cs, ResourceManager.cs, ObjectPoolManager.cs.+7.7 ptsLowKnowledge Freshness
Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with IDataProviderHelper.cs.+5.1 ptsLowComment Value
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).+8.7 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.+7.9 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 31 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 39% mixed · 61% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.NetworkChannelBase.cs5.4MixedExplicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.cs5.7MixedCognitive Complexity: ResourceManager.GetFileSystem (cognitive 23)
GameFramework/UI/UIManager.cs7.0MixedGod Classes: TooManyMethods: UIManager
GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: ResourceUpdater.ApplyResource (cyclomatic 30)
GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.cs7.1MixedCyclomatic Complexity: ResourceChecker.RefreshCheckInfoStatus (cyclomatic 24)
GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs7.1MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (25 lines × 2)
GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceVerifier.cs7.2MixedCyclomatic Complexity: ResourceVerifier.VerifyResource (cyclomatic 24)
GameFramework/FileSystem/FileSystem.cs7.2MixedCognitive Complexity: FileSystem.AllocBlock (cognitive 18)
GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceIniter.cs7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: ResourceIniter.OnLoadPackageVersionListSuccess (cyclomatic 19)
GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceLoader.LoadResourceAgent.cs7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: LoadResourceAgent.Start (cyclomatic 19)
GameFramework/UI/UIManager.UIGroup.cs7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: UIGroup.Refresh (cyclomatic 17)
GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceLoader.cs7.8MixedCognitive Complexity: ResourceLoader.LoadAsset (cognitive 17)
GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.CheckInfo.cs8.5Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: CheckInfo.RefreshStatus (cyclomatic 16)
GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceGroupCollection.cs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: ResourceGroupCollection.ResourceGroupCollection.ctor (cognitive 21)
GameFramework/Base/GameFrameworkMultiDictionary.cs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: GameFrameworkMultiDictionary.Remove (cognitive 17)
GameFramework/Sound/SoundManager.SoundGroup.cs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: SoundGroup.PlaySound (cognitive 17)
GameFramework/Utility/Utility.Verifier.cs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: Verifier.GetCrc32 (cognitive 17)
GameFramework/DataTable/DataTableManager.DataTable.cs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: DataTable.RemoveDataRow (cognitive 16)
GameFramework/ObjectPool/ObjectPoolManager.cs8.5Near-cleanGod Classes: TooManyMethods: ObjectPoolManager
GameFramework/Base/Log/GameFrameworkLog.cs8.5Near-cleanGod Classes: TooManyMethods: GameFrameworkLog

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. 37 of 41 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.5 — 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 — 41 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D12D13D15D17D18D19D21D24D26D27D28D29D34D35AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P3P6PF1PF2PF3X1X3

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 68 of 78 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.

Tools & methods

The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication—✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.302✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.302✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivySecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019fd2b4-7963-7759-8a7e-8667612fc102.

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

A clean run — every tool resolved and ran, and every applicable dimension was measured at full confidence. No scanner was unavailable, no analysis timed out or crashed, and nothing fell back to a degraded estimate.

When something does degrade — a missing scanner, a shallow clone, an LLM hiccup — it is named here explicitly and its exact cause recorded in diagnostics.md, never absorbed silently into the score.

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.
  • D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • 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.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity8.6 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

9 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ResourceUpdater.ApplyResource at 30.

ResourceUpdater.ApplyResource (cyclomatic 30)GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs:509
ResourceUpdater.OnDownloadSuccess (cyclomatic 30)GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs:817
ResourceChecker.RefreshCheckInfoStatus (cyclomatic 24)GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.cs:122
ResourceVerifier.VerifyResource (cyclomatic 24)GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceVerifier.cs:147
ResourceChecker.OnLoadUpdatableVersionListSuccess (cyclomatic 19)GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.cs:255

+ 4 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 ResourceUpdater.ApplyResource (cyclomatic 30) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 ResourceUpdater.OnDownloadSuccess (cyclomatic 30) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 ResourceChecker.RefreshCheckInfoStatus (cyclomatic 24) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cyclomatic Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity6.8 / 10Adequate✓ 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 6.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

23 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ResourceChecker.RefreshCheckInfoStatus at 53.

ResourceChecker.RefreshCheckInfoStatus (cognitive 53)GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.cs:122
UIGroup.Refresh (cognitive 53)GameFramework/UI/UIManager.UIGroup.cs:393
ResourceUpdater.ApplyResource (cognitive 45)GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs:509
ResourceVerifier.VerifyResource (cognitive 40)GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceVerifier.cs:147
ResourceUpdater.OnDownloadSuccess (cognitive 38)GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs:817

+ 18 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 ResourceChecker.RefreshCheckInfoStatus (cognitive 53) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 UIGroup.Refresh (cognitive 53) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with UIManager.UIGroup.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 ResourceUpdater.ApplyResource (cognitive 45) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cognitive Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D3 · God Classes8.8 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

16 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: ObjectPoolManager · ×12GameFramework/ObjectPool/ObjectPoolManager.cs:0
FileTooLong: Resource/ResourceManager.cs · ×3GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.cs:0
ClassTooLong: ResourceUpdaterGameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs:0

What to do

  1. Resolve the 12 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with ObjectPoolManager.cs, ResourceManager.cs, GameFrameworkLog.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with ResourceManager.cs, FileSystem.cs, ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate God Classes in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D4 · Code Duplication9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

9 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×3GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:58
Duplicated block (25 lines × 2)GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:122
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2)GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:174
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:90
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2)GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.cs:807

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 of 112 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: UIManager (LCOM4 4)GameFramework/UI/UIManager.cs:18

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D8 · Code Coverage0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository.

No automated tests

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Coverage in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D9 · Test Distribution0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No test suite found.

No tests found

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

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

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

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

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

0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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.

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 52315 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0.

EmptyCatchBlockGameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.NetworkChannelBase.cs:383

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D18 · Solution Shape8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 projects, 330 source files, 52315 hand-written lines of code (52315 production / 0 test), 0 inter-project edges (build failed).

Single-project monolith
Build did not complete in the analyzer

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Single-project monolith finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Adequate◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The README is a solid single-page overview of the Game Framework for Unity that describes what it is and lists 14 modules with brief purposes. It covers configuration, data nodes, download, entities, events, file system, FSM, localization, network, object pool, procedure, resource, and ends at the clip marker before detailing each module's implementation (e.g., how the debugger or download works). The visible content is clear and complete for a homepage; the clipped outline means no further modules are flagged as missing. It lacks an introduction section that would explain what Game Framework does versus alternatives, so it is slightly thin on context.

XML-doc coverage: GameFrameworkGameFramework/GameFramework.csproj

What to do

  1. Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.0/10. — The README is a solid single-page overview of the Game Framework for Unity that describes what it is and lists 14 modules with brief purposes. It covers configuration, data nodes, download, entities, events, file system, FSM, localization, network, object pool, procedure, resource, and ends at the clip marker before detailing each module's implementation (e.g., how the debugger or download works). The visible content is clear and complete for a homepage; the clipped outline means no further modules are flagged as missing. It lacks an introduction section that would explain what Game Framework does versus alternatives, so it is slightly thin on context.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D24 · Comment Value / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.

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

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

redundant commentGameFramework/Base/DataProvider/IDataProviderHelper.cs:2

What to do

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

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

D26 · Project Cohesion0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 1 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split GameFramework

What to do

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

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

D27 · Navigability4.5 / 10Weak✓ 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 4.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 % of calls cross a namespace and 36 % go through an interface, but 90 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: large — vertical-slice locality expected.

High interface indirection

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 High interface indirection finding(s) in Navigability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

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

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

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

184 of 184 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is GameFramework/Base/Log/GameFrameworkLog.cs.

Largest orphaned file · ×3GameFramework/Base/Log/GameFrameworkLog.cs
Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with GameFrameworkLog.cs, ResourceManager.cs, ObjectPoolManager.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
  2. 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.

D35 · Change Coupling9.9 / 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: IConfigHelper.cs↔ILocalizationHelper.cs 50%; ResourceManager.cs↔UpdateResourcesCompleteCallback.cs 50%; IResourceManager.cs↔UpdateResourcesCompleteCallback.cs 50%

Change coupling: IConfigHelper.cs ↔ ILocalizationHelper.cs · ×4GameFramework/Config/IConfigHelper.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ 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).
AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

AX5 · Architecture & structure3.0 / 10Weak✓ 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.

  • ~52.3k production LoC (367 types) across 1 project(s) / 20 namespace(s) with no recognised architectural style or layering — at this size, deliberate module boundaries would help. No DDD/clean/vertical-slice/CQRS/transaction-script organisation was detected — code is likely organised ad hoc, which makes change and onboarding harder as it grows.

What to do

  • Introduce deliberate module boundaries — by feature (vertical slices) if your team prefers, or by layer (domain/application/infrastructure). Even splitting into a few cohesive projects with a clear dependency direction would help.
AX6 · Interface segregation8.3 / 10Strong✓ 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.

  • `ITextHelper` declares 16 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — Utility.Text.ITextHelper.cs:17
  • `IConfigManager` declares 20 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IConfigManager.cs:15
  • `IDataNode` declares 20 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IDataNode.cs:15
  • `IDataNodeManager` declares 16 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IDataNodeManager.cs:13
  • `IDataTable<T>` declares 23 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IDataTable.cs:17
  • `IDataTableManager` declares 27 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IDataTableManager.cs:17
  • `IDownloadManager` declares 29 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IDownloadManager.cs:16
  • `IEntityGroup` declares 17 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IEntityGroup.cs:15
  • `IEntityManager` declares 63 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IEntityManager.cs:18
  • `IFileSystem` declares 31 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IFileSystem.cs:16
  • `IFsm<T>` declares 22 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IFsm.cs:17
  • `IFsmManager` declares 21 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IFsmManager.cs:16
  • `ILocalizationManager` declares 31 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ILocalizationManager.cs:15
  • `INetworkChannel` declares 19 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — INetworkChannel.cs:17
  • `IObjectPool<T>` declares 28 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IObjectPool.cs:16
  • `IObjectPoolManager` declares 85 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IObjectPoolManager.cs:16
  • `IResourceManager` declares 108 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IResourceManager.cs:19
  • `ISceneManager` declares 23 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ISceneManager.cs:17
  • `ISettingHelper` declares 26 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ISettingHelper.cs:16
  • `ISettingManager` declares 27 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ISettingManager.cs:16
  • `ISoundAgent` declares 26 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ISoundAgent.cs:13
  • `ISoundAgentHelper` declares 19 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ISoundAgentHelper.cs:15
  • `ISoundManager` declares 34 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ISoundManager.cs:17
  • `IUIForm` declares 17 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IUIForm.cs:13
  • `IUIManager` declares 51 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IUIManager.cs:18
  • `IWebRequestManager` declares 33 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IWebRequestManager.cs:16

What to do

  • Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

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

M1 · Documentation (README)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — 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.
M3 · Folder & project structure6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

  • Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it all sits under GameFramework/ alongside the root build files, so the conventional src/ boundary between the product and its tooling isn't drawn.
  • No test surface was found — there are no tests here to separate from production code, so the folder question hasn't been reached yet.

What to do

  • Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
  • Start a test surface where your build system looks for one (tests/, test/, spec/, or your ecosystem's test source set) — the separation follows from putting the first tests in the right place.
M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

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

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

  • No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.

What to do

  • Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build.

What to do

  • Run 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 — — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
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.

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

What to do

  • Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
PF1 · Benchmark discipline6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

  • No benchmark suite was found. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

  • Add a benchmarking harness for the hot paths and run it in CI to catch regressions (for .NET, a BenchmarkDotNet project with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations).
PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.2 / 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 26 use(s) across 52,315 production line(s) (~0.5/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

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

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

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

X3 · Exception handling7.3 / 10Strong✓ 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. On a teardown path letting it propagate is not an option (throwing out of `Dispose()` masks the failure already in flight and abandons the rest of the cleanup), so make the swallow deliberate instead: narrow the catch to the exception this release can actually raise, and record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems — or, if it truly cannot matter, say why in a comment on the catch. — NetworkManager.NetworkChannelBase.cs:383

What to do

  • Swallowed exception (empty catch)

Reference — by lens

The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health87%StrongSolid.
Architecture68%Adequate — gated by D26, AX5Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity42%Weak — gated by D34, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness23%Critical — gated by D8, D9, P1, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security95%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Performance70%StrongSolid.
Not included — 55 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.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • 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 — No tests were found in the analyzed repository to assess for quality.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
  • D14 License Compliance — license scan produced no result — the tool ran but its JSON output could not be parsed; the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing
  • D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
  • 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 — At only 52315 LoC across a single project the codebase is trivially small and has no boundaries to declare.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read; classic .NET Framework projects are packages.config by default). No packages could be enumerated, so there was nothing to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored, because an unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan
  • 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) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
  • 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
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
  • P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
  • P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — 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.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
  • X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
  • 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 — 2 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×1
  • EmptyCatchBlock GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.NetworkChannelBase.cs:383 — 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.
D8 · Code Coverage · No automated tests · ×1
  • No automated tests — No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository. Untested code is the largest single risk to changing it safely.
Warning — 63 finding(s)
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×12
  • TooManyMethods: ObjectPoolManager GameFramework/ObjectPool/ObjectPoolManager.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 300 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 93 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: ResourceManager GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 1007 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 91 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: GameFrameworkLog GameFramework/Base/Log/GameFrameworkLog.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 365 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 91 methods. The type holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group its members by. To reduce it, split it by area instead: give each cohesive family of members its own smaller type, so no one type has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • TooManyMethods: EntityManager GameFramework/Entity/EntityManager.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 489 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 66 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: Converter GameFramework/Utility/Utility.Converter.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 200 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 64 methods. The type holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group its members by. To reduce it, split it by area instead: give each cohesive family of members its own smaller type, so no one type has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • TooManyMethods: UIManager GameFramework/UI/UIManager.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 377 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 49 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: FileSystem GameFramework/FileSystem/FileSystem.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 575 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 44 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: LocalizationManager GameFramework/Localization/LocalizationManager.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 242 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 40 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: SoundManager GameFramework/Sound/SoundManager.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 267 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 36 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: ConfigManager GameFramework/Config/ConfigManager.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 129 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 32 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: DataTableManager GameFramework/DataTable/DataTableManager.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 153 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 31 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: WebRequestManager GameFramework/WebRequest/WebRequestManager.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 131 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 31 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×4
  • Change coupling: IConfigHelper.cs ↔ ILocalizationHelper.cs GameFramework/Config/IConfigHelper.cs — `GameFramework/Config/IConfigHelper.cs` and `GameFramework/Localization/ILocalizationHelper.cs` change together 50% of the time (9 of the 18 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well). 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: ResourceManager.cs ↔ UpdateResourcesCompleteCallback.cs GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.cs — `GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.cs` and `GameFramework/Resource/UpdateResourcesCompleteCallback.cs` change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well). 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: IResourceManager.cs ↔ UpdateResourcesCompleteCallback.cs GameFramework/Resource/IResourceManager.cs — `GameFramework/Resource/IResourceManager.cs` and `GameFramework/Resource/UpdateResourcesCompleteCallback.cs` change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well). 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: CheckResourcesCompleteCallback.cs ↔ ResourceManager.cs GameFramework/Resource/CheckResourcesCompleteCallback.cs — `GameFramework/Resource/CheckResourcesCompleteCallback.cs` and `GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.cs` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well). 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.
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×3
  • FileTooLong: Resource/ResourceManager.cs GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.cs:0 — FileTooLong — 984 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: FileSystem/FileSystem.cs GameFramework/FileSystem/FileSystem.cs:0 — FileTooLong — 577 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs:0 — FileTooLong — 505 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:58 — GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:58-72 | GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpWithSyncReceiveNetworkChannel.cs:56-70 — 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.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:157 — GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:157-171 | GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpWithSyncReceiveNetworkChannel.cs:166-180 — 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 `GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:157` 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.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.cs:379 — GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.cs:379-393 | GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.cs:447-461 — 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 `GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.cs:379` 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ResourceUpdater.ApplyResource (cyclomatic 30) · ×1
  • ResourceUpdater.ApplyResource (cyclomatic 30) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs:509 — ResourceUpdater.ApplyResource has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). 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 · ResourceUpdater.OnDownloadSuccess (cyclomatic 30) · ×1
  • ResourceUpdater.OnDownloadSuccess (cyclomatic 30) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs:817 — ResourceUpdater.OnDownloadSuccess has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). 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 · ResourceChecker.RefreshCheckInfoStatus (cyclomatic 24) · ×1
  • ResourceChecker.RefreshCheckInfoStatus (cyclomatic 24) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.cs:122 — ResourceChecker.RefreshCheckInfoStatus has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). 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 · ResourceVerifier.VerifyResource (cyclomatic 24) · ×1
  • ResourceVerifier.VerifyResource (cyclomatic 24) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceVerifier.cs:147 — ResourceVerifier.VerifyResource has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). 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 · ResourceChecker.OnLoadUpdatableVersionListSuccess (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • ResourceChecker.OnLoadUpdatableVersionListSuccess (cyclomatic 19) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.cs:255 — ResourceChecker.OnLoadUpdatableVersionListSuccess has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ResourceIniter.OnLoadPackageVersionListSuccess (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • ResourceIniter.OnLoadPackageVersionListSuccess (cyclomatic 19) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceIniter.cs:67 — ResourceIniter.OnLoadPackageVersionListSuccess has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). 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 · LoadResourceAgent.Start (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • LoadResourceAgent.Start (cyclomatic 19) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceLoader.LoadResourceAgent.cs:143 — LoadResourceAgent.Start has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). 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 · UIGroup.Refresh (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • UIGroup.Refresh (cyclomatic 17) GameFramework/UI/UIManager.UIGroup.cs:393 — UIGroup.Refresh has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). 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 · CheckInfo.RefreshStatus (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • CheckInfo.RefreshStatus (cyclomatic 16) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.CheckInfo.cs:256 — CheckInfo.RefreshStatus 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.
D16 · Bus Factor · dormant codebase · ×1
  • dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate — All 112 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ResourceChecker.RefreshCheckInfoStatus (cognitive 53) · ×1
  • ResourceChecker.RefreshCheckInfoStatus (cognitive 53) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.cs:122 — ResourceChecker.RefreshCheckInfoStatus has cognitive complexity 53 (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 · UIGroup.Refresh (cognitive 53) · ×1
  • UIGroup.Refresh (cognitive 53) GameFramework/UI/UIManager.UIGroup.cs:393 — UIGroup.Refresh has cognitive complexity 53 (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 · ResourceUpdater.ApplyResource (cognitive 45) · ×1
  • ResourceUpdater.ApplyResource (cognitive 45) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs:509 — ResourceUpdater.ApplyResource has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). 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 · ResourceVerifier.VerifyResource (cognitive 40) · ×1
  • ResourceVerifier.VerifyResource (cognitive 40) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceVerifier.cs:147 — ResourceVerifier.VerifyResource has cognitive complexity 40 (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 · ResourceUpdater.OnDownloadSuccess (cognitive 38) · ×1
  • ResourceUpdater.OnDownloadSuccess (cognitive 38) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs:817 — ResourceUpdater.OnDownloadSuccess has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). 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 · ResourceIniter.OnLoadPackageVersionListSuccess (cognitive 30) · ×1
  • ResourceIniter.OnLoadPackageVersionListSuccess (cognitive 30) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceIniter.cs:67 — ResourceIniter.OnLoadPackageVersionListSuccess has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). 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 · ResourceChecker.OnLoadUpdatableVersionListSuccess (cognitive 29) · ×1
  • ResourceChecker.OnLoadUpdatableVersionListSuccess (cognitive 29) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceChecker.cs:255 — ResourceChecker.OnLoadUpdatableVersionListSuccess 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 · LoadResourceAgent.Start (cognitive 26) · ×1
  • LoadResourceAgent.Start (cognitive 26) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceLoader.LoadResourceAgent.cs:143 — LoadResourceAgent.Start has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). 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 · ResourceManager.GetFileSystem (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • ResourceManager.GetFileSystem (cognitive 23) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.cs:2292 — ResourceManager.GetFileSystem has cognitive complexity 23 (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 · ResourceUpdater.GenerateReadWriteVersionList (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • ResourceUpdater.GenerateReadWriteVersionList (cognitive 23) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs:679 — ResourceUpdater.GenerateReadWriteVersionList has cognitive complexity 23 (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 · ResourceVerifier.GenerateReadWriteVersionList (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • ResourceVerifier.GenerateReadWriteVersionList (cognitive 23) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceVerifier.cs:241 — ResourceVerifier.GenerateReadWriteVersionList has cognitive complexity 23 (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 · ResourceUpdater.Update (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • ResourceUpdater.Update (cognitive 22) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs:198 — ResourceUpdater.Update has cognitive complexity 22 (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 · ResourceGroupCollection.ResourceGroupCollection.ctor (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • ResourceGroupCollection.ResourceGroupCollection.ctor (cognitive 21) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceGroupCollection.cs:30 — ResourceGroupCollection.ResourceGroupCollection.ctor has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). 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 · FileSystem.AllocBlock (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • FileSystem.AllocBlock (cognitive 18) GameFramework/FileSystem/FileSystem.cs:1224 — FileSystem.AllocBlock has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). 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 · GameFrameworkMultiDictionary.Remove (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • GameFrameworkMultiDictionary.Remove (cognitive 17) GameFramework/Base/GameFrameworkMultiDictionary.cs:132 — GameFrameworkMultiDictionary.Remove has cognitive complexity 17 (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 · NetworkChannelBase.Update (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • NetworkChannelBase.Update (cognitive 17) GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.NetworkChannelBase.cs:236 — NetworkChannelBase.Update has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). 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 · NetworkChannelBase.ProcessSend (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • NetworkChannelBase.ProcessSend (cognitive 17) GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.NetworkChannelBase.cs:493 — NetworkChannelBase.ProcessSend has cognitive complexity 17 (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 · ResourceLoader.LoadAsset (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • ResourceLoader.LoadAsset (cognitive 17) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceLoader.cs:306 — ResourceLoader.LoadAsset has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). 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 · ResourceLoader.LoadScene (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • ResourceLoader.LoadScene (cognitive 17) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceLoader.cs:373 — ResourceLoader.LoadScene has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). 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 · SoundGroup.PlaySound (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • SoundGroup.PlaySound (cognitive 17) GameFramework/Sound/SoundManager.SoundGroup.cs:152 — SoundGroup.PlaySound has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). 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 · Verifier.GetCrc32 (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • Verifier.GetCrc32 (cognitive 17) GameFramework/Utility/Utility.Verifier.cs:139 — Verifier.GetCrc32 has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). 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 · DataTable.RemoveDataRow (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • DataTable.RemoveDataRow (cognitive 16) GameFramework/DataTable/DataTableManager.DataTable.cs:434 — DataTable.RemoveDataRow has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). 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 · ResourceUpdater.ApplyResources (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • ResourceUpdater.ApplyResources (cognitive 16) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs:316 — ResourceUpdater.ApplyResources has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×1
  • ClassTooLong: ResourceUpdater GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceUpdater.cs:0 — ClassTooLong — 500 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 17 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:122 — GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:122-146 | GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpWithSyncReceiveNetworkChannel.cs:132-156 — 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 `GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:122` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:174 — GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:174-191 | GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpWithSyncReceiveNetworkChannel.cs:183-200 — 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 `GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:174` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:90 — GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:90-103 | GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpWithSyncReceiveNetworkChannel.cs:100-113 — 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 `GameFramework/Network/NetworkManager.TcpNetworkChannel.cs:90` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.cs:807 — GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.cs:807-817 | GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.cs:2559-2569 — 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 `GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.cs:807` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) GameFramework/FileSystem/FileSystem.cs:1177 — GameFramework/FileSystem/FileSystem.cs:1177-1184 | GameFramework/FileSystem/FileSystem.cs:1187-1194 — 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 `GameFramework/FileSystem/FileSystem.cs:1177` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceVerifier.cs:166 — GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceVerifier.cs:166-172 | GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceVerifier.cs:209-215 — 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 `GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceVerifier.cs:166` 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. 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.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×1
  • Low cohesion: UIManager (LCOM4 4) GameFramework/UI/UIManager.cs:18 — UIManager's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Recommendation — 10 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Largest orphaned file · ×3
  • Largest orphaned file GameFramework/Base/Log/GameFrameworkLog.cs — One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
  • Largest orphaned file GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.cs — One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
  • Largest orphaned file GameFramework/ObjectPool/ObjectPoolManager.cs — One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
D11 · Test Reliability · Test reliability not included · ×1
  • Test reliability not included — No test suite was found, so reliability couldn't be assessed.
D18 · Solution Shape · Single-project monolith · ×1
  • Single-project monolith — The whole codebase lives in one project — at this size, splitting along clear seams (domain / infrastructure / hosting) would make boundaries explicit and builds faster.
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1
  • redundant comment GameFramework/Base/DataProvider/IDataProviderHelper.cs:2 — "Game Framework" — delete - restates the namespace name
D26 · Project Cohesion · Split GameFramework · ×1
  • Split GameFramework — A generic GameFramework name that is huge and spans 20 unrelated namespaces (input parsing, physics, rendering) is a sprawling grab-bag. Suggested: by namespace: InputParsing, PhysicsEngine, RenderingPipeline
D27 · Navigability · High interface indirection · ×1
  • High interface indirection — 36 % of calls go through an interface — tracing a call means resolving the implementation each hop. Prefer concrete types where there's a single implementation.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 184 of 184 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 184 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.
D9 · Test Distribution · No tests found · ×1
  • No tests found — No test suite could be collected — nothing here references a test framework (xUnit, NUnit or MSTest), so there were no discoverable tests to count. Tests written as plain executables or shell/PowerShell harnesses are not collectible this way and are not scored here.
Info — 3 finding(s)
D18 · Solution Shape · Build did not complete in the analyzer · ×1
  • Build did not complete in the analyzer — `dotnet build` reported 1 error(s) but no C# compiler diagnostic, so this is a build-environment gap rather than a code defect. The usual causes are a project that targets a platform this run cannot build (a Windows-only target framework on a Linux worker) or a build step that shells out to a tool the image does not carry. Solution Shape is scored on structure and is NOT capped. Semantic analysis is independent of this build and covers every project that loaded — but a project whose restore did not complete has no resolved references, so treat its results as absent rather than clean. Worth checking on your side too: a build that needs undeclared host tooling, or that cannot run off its own platform, is the same wall a new contributor hits.
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×1
  • XML-doc coverage: GameFramework GameFramework/GameFramework.csproj — GameFramework: 89 % XML-doc coverage (2412/2703).
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .1artifacts/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 .0artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet: not applicable — `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read; classic .NET Framework projects are packages.config by default). No packages could be enumerated, so there was nothing to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored, because an unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan0—
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—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 & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-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 Confinementruntime-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 Confinementruntime-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 Enforcementruntime-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 019fd2b4-7963-7759-8a7e-8667612fc102 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 10 field(s) across 1 category, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.

Name — 10 field(s)
  • DataNode.FullName GameFramework/DataNode/DataNodeManager.DataNode.cs:67
  • IDataNode.FullName GameFramework/DataNode/IDataNode.cs:28
  • DataTableBase.FullName GameFramework/DataTable/DataTableBase.cs:53
  • IDataTable.FullName GameFramework/DataTable/IDataTable.cs:30
  • FsmBase.FullName GameFramework/Fsm/FsmBase.cs:45
  • IFsm.FullName GameFramework/Fsm/IFsm.cs:30
  • IObjectPool.FullName GameFramework/ObjectPool/IObjectPool.cs:29
  • ObjectPoolBase.FullName GameFramework/ObjectPool/ObjectPoolBase.cs:50
  • ResourceName.s_ResourceFullNames GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceName.cs:22
  • ResourceName.FullName GameFramework/Resource/ResourceManager.ResourceName.cs:84

Issues: 2 · Warnings: 63 · Recommendations: 10 · Info: 3 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 05-08-2026 @ 16:14 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

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

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