eventuous — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

Preview (pre-1.0). This repo hasn't declared a stable release, so it's judged against a relaxed, pre-production bar.

This system holds a strong overall standing of 67%, indicating a healthy asset with solid foundational code and architecture. However, the business faces a specific operational risk: the system is not yet fully ready for reliable, secure production use. While the core logic is well-modeled and maintainable, the gap in operational readiness creates a vulnerability that could lead to costly outages or data inconsistencies if left unaddressed.

The value at stake is moderate, with a small codebase of roughly 19,000 lines of production code. Rebuilding this system from scratch would require approximately 0.6 person-years, costing around €87,000. This relatively low rebuild cost means the business has the flexibility to invest in improvements without the heavy burden of a massive refactoring project. The code is largely boilerplate and straight-line logic, suggesting that the core business rules are simple and easy to understand, which aids in long-term maintenance.

The primary risk lies in operational fragility. With a readiness score of 57%, the system lacks the safety nets required for stable deployment. This includes missing health checks and unverified test reliability, meaning failures may go undetected until they impact users. This fragility increases the likelihood of extended downtime and higher support costs, as engineers spend time debugging issues that could have been caught by automated safeguards. The lack of measured test coverage further obscures the true state of quality, creating uncertainty around the safety of any changes.

A secondary concern is security exposure. Although the security score is decent at 73%, the absence of automated static analysis in the build pipeline leaves the system vulnerable to regressions. Without a gate that blocks insecure code, vulnerabilities can slip into production, increasing the risk of data breaches and compliance violations. This is a preventable risk that can be mitigated with minimal effort but significant impact on trust.

On the positive side, the system benefits from excellent domain modeling and high performance, ensuring that business logic is clear and the application responds quickly. These strengths provide a stable foundation for future growth. The highest-leverage action is to make retry-prone mutations idempotent, preventing data duplication during failures. This single change addresses a critical reliability gap with minimal effort. Following this, adding automated security scanning and health checks will solidify the system’s operational posture, ensuring it remains a reliable asset for the business.

Code Health 78% Strong Architecture 83% Strong Maturity 74% Strong Readiness 57% Adequate Security 73% Adequate · gated by D29, D36 Domain Modelling 100% ★ Exemplary Performance 85% ★ Exemplary

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 57% · 46% weightSecurity 73% · 25% weightMaturity 74% · 14% weightCode Health 78% · 8% weightArchitecture 83% · 4% weightPerformance 85% · 2% weightDomain Modelling 100% · 1% weight

Raise Readiness 57 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 67 → ~73.

Code composition — where the lines go

Business logic 14%Plumbing 37%Tests 44%Analyzers 4%

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €29,000–€150,000

Cost to rebuild	€29,000–€150,000 (0.3–0.9 person-years (478–1,534 h), ~1–2 engineers)
Domain complexity	Very high — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.9× (at 67% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · 39% boilerplate · 30% straight-line · 31% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.6 person-years of build effort (about ~€87,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 57% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Very high (×1.7) — microservices, DDD/clean architecture, domain model × a 0.9× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 2 Prerelease dependency finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

+7.9 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

+4.6 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

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

+8.9 pts · REDACTED effort · Idempotency

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

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

This is a Small asset (~0.6 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 57%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.6 person-years rebuild (18,938 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 57%

→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

Highest-leverage move · REDACTED · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply. The rest can wait behind it.

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

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

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Each box is a bounded context (its layer projects grouped, or a project count when large); arrows show dependencies between contexts. A shared kernel is where many arrows converge.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

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.)

104 modules, 206 dependencies. 5 dependency cycles across 17 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 64 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 Eventuous	3 Eventuous.Diagnostics.Metrics	5 Eventuous.Producers.Diagnostics	6 Eventuous.Sql.Base	7 Eventuous.Subscriptions.Context	8 Eventuous.Tests.Persistence.Base.Fixtures	9 Eventuous.Diagnostics	10 Eventuous.Producers	11 Eventuous.Subscriptions.Logging	16 Eventuous.Subscriptions.Checkpoints	17 Eventuous.Subscriptions.Consumers	18 Eventuous.Subscriptions.Diagnostics	19 Eventuous.Subscriptions.Filters	20 Eventuous.Subscriptions	23 Eventuous.Gateway	30 Eventuous.Sql.Base.Subscriptions	31 Eventuous.SqlServer.Projections	32 Eventuous.Sqlite.Projections	34 Eventuous.Tests.OpenTelemetry.Fakes
1 Eventuous
2 ElasticPlayground	7
3 Eventuous.Diagnostics.Metrics							1
4 Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Http	2
5 Eventuous.Producers.Diagnostics	1							2
6 Eventuous.Sql.Base	11
7 Eventuous.Subscriptions.Context	6								3					3
8 Eventuous.Tests.Persistence.Base.Fixtures	12
9 Eventuous.Diagnostics	6	2
10 Eventuous.Producers	6		1
11 Eventuous.Subscriptions.Logging	1				2					4				1
12 Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus.Producers	5		1					5
13 Eventuous.ElasticSearch.Producers	1		1					2
14 Eventuous.GooglePubSub.Producers	2		1					3
15 Eventuous.RabbitMq.Producers	2		1					3
16 Eventuous.Subscriptions.Checkpoints									1
17 Eventuous.Subscriptions.Consumers					2				1					1
18 Eventuous.Subscriptions.Diagnostics		1			3		2			2
19 Eventuous.Subscriptions.Filters					10						1			1
20 Eventuous.Subscriptions	6				9				3	4		2	2
21 Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus.Subscriptions	2												1	6
22 Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs	1				3									3
23 Eventuous.Gateway	8				4			6						3
24 Eventuous.GooglePubSub.CloudRun	1												1	3
25 Eventuous.GooglePubSub.Subscriptions	1												1	3
26 Eventuous.KurrentDB.Subscriptions	16				3					3		4	7	14
27 Eventuous.Projections.MongoDB	4				12					3				2
28 Eventuous.RabbitMq.Subscriptions	1				2								1	3
29 Eventuous.Redis.Subscriptions	4				1					5			3	4
30 Eventuous.Sql.Base.Subscriptions	3			1	1					1		2	1	5
31 Eventuous.SqlServer.Projections	1				3									1
32 Eventuous.Sqlite.Projections	1				3									1
33 Eventuous.Subscriptions.Registrations											2		2	2
34 Eventuous.Tests.OpenTelemetry.Fakes					1									2
35 Eventuous.Tests.Subscriptions.Base	2				3	2				1		2		8
36 Eventuous.Postgresql.Subscriptions	7			1						5			3	1		2
37 Eventuous.SignalR.Server	4							2					2	2	1
38 Eventuous.SqlServer.Subscriptions	7									5			3	1		2	3
39 Eventuous.Sqlite.Subscriptions	7									5			3	1		2		3
40 Eventuous.Tests.OpenTelemetry.Fixtures	2					1		2											4

Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 78% · Strong ·

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 8.5 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 7.3 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.5 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 7.9 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 9.7 D39 · .NET / C# IL Efficiency 10.0 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 7.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 7.7 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 8.7 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 7.7 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X32 · Repo Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 9.0

At a glance — Architecture · 83% · Strong ·

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 9.8 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.9 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 9.1 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 9.9 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 8.8 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 6.8 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 7.4 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 9.9 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 74% · Strong ·

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.9 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 10.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.3 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Bad

M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 5.0

The Ugly

D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 57% · Adequate ·

The Good

D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 9.7 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 7.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 8.8 P5 · Repo DR & Backup 7.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 10.0

The Bad

ED5 · Repo Idempotency 5.3 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

The Ugly

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 4.0

At a glance — Security · 73% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

The Good

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 9.4 D43 · .NET / C# Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 10.0 C2 · Repo Access Controls 10.0

The Bad

D31 · .NET / C# IaC & Container Security 6.4 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 6.0

The Ugly

D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 2.8 D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

DM1 · Repo Aggregate boundaries 10.0 DM10 · Repo One transaction, one aggregate 10.0 DM11 · Repo Constructible invalid state 10.0 DM12 · Repo Ambient inputs in the domain 10.0 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 10.0 DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 10.0 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 9.8 DM9 · Repo Scattered domain decisions 9.2

At a glance — Performance · 85% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 9.5 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 10.0 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 7.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2021 — Injection	26	REDACTED / Critical
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration	24	REDACTED / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	1	REDACTED / Critical

Roadmap

First, ensure all retry-prone mutations are idempotent by implementing deduplication or versioned writes to prevent data duplication. Second, integrate automated security scanning into the CI pipeline to block regressions before they reach production. Third, improve deployment reliability by adding health checks to services and maintaining immutable image tags for instant rollback. Finally, maintain a clear changelog for release tracking and document tested disaster recovery procedures to define and validate recovery objectives.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 2 Prerelease dependency finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+7.9 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+4.6 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.	+8.9 pts	REDACTED	Idempotency
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.	+8.9 pts	REDACTED	Security & performance tooling
Add a `healthcheck:` to the served compose service — probing the endpoint it already answers on where it has one — with `depends_on: condition: service_healthy` on whatever waits for it, and keep the deployed image tag immutable and recorded so rolling back is re-pointing at the previous tag rather than rebuilding.	+8.9 pts	REDACTED	Deployment & Rollback
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.	+8.9 pts	REDACTED	Release Hygiene
Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).	+8.6 pts	REDACTED	DR & Backup
Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.	+5.5 pts	REDACTED	Observability

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 99 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 2% slop · 8% mixed · 90% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	1.0	Slop	IaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.3	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.1	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.5	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.6	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
src/KurrentDB/src/Eventuous.KurrentDB/KurrentDBEventStore.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable
REDACTED	6.1	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
src/Directory.Build.props	6.4	Mixed	Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
src/Core/src/Eventuous.Persistence/StateStore/StateStore.cs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: WriteOnlyPrivateField
src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/EventSubscription.cs	7.0	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: EventSubscription.Handler (cognitive 20)
src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.cs	7.2	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cyclomatic 41)
src/SignalR/test/Eventuous.Tests.SignalR/SubscriptionGatewayTests.cs	7.2	Near-clean	Test Quality: Fixed-sleep synchronisation: SubscribeAsync_CreatesSubscriptionViaFactory
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	IaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandMappingGenerator.cs	7.3	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: HttpCommandMappingGenerator.Execute (cognitive 28)
src/Mongo/src/Eventuous.Projections.MongoDB/Operations/UpdateBuilder.cs	7.3	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs	7.4	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: EventUsageAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cyclomatic 30)
src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs	7.4	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.TransformWithSymbol (cyclomatic 20)

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 41

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 142

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 173

Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.

Could not be resolved — 0

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

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. 81 of 86 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — 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 — 86 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D20D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D39D43D44AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8C2DM1DM10DM11DM12DM5DM6DM8DM9ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P5P6P7PF1PF2PF3S1X1X12X13X16X18X19X2X20X21X22X23X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 264 of 356 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0c26f-6ea7-771a-8cc8-5a3391faf2d5.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. No coverage collector was found in your CI either, so there is no existing report to hand us. You can widen what we reach: optional: add a coverage collector to your test run and commit (or publish) its Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov output anywhere in the repo, or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test reliability NOT MEASURED: the test run produced no results for any test tier, so no test ever ran and flakiness could not be exercised. The cause could not be attributed, so it is excluded from the score rather than read as an absence of tests.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (29 contributor(s) across 1048 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 89% of the history; the other 28 hold 0.4% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. At 22k LoC across 216 projects this is a very large multi-module system that far exceeds the ~50-project threshold and needs explicit bounded contexts. Bounded contexts cannot be inferred from a codebase that is not physically organised by them (D-321), so with none declared there are no boundaries for the coupling pass to measure across. You can widen what we reach: name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus/Producers/ServiceBusMessageBatchBuilder.cs`, `src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus/Producers/ServiceBusMessageBuilder.cs`, `src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus/Subscriptions/ServiceBusSubscription.cs`, `src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs/BlobStorageProjector.cs`, `src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs`, … (+103 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
X2 Cancellation propagation — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 4 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 44.

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 — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so 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.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
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. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
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").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
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.
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
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 (5): D19, D21, D24, ED5, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They 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 Complexity8.5 / 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 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

6 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation at 41.

HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cyclomatic 41)src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.cs:33

EventUsageAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cyclomatic 30)src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs:118

ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.TransformWithSymbol (cyclomatic 20)src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs:74

Handler.Handle (cyclomatic 19)src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs/BlobStorageProjector.cs:136

SqlSubscriptionBase.Poll (cyclomatic 17)src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/Subscriptions/SqlSubscriptionBase.cs:82

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 1 HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cyclomatic 41) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 EventUsageAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cyclomatic 30) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with EventUsageAnalyzer.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.TransformWithSymbol (cyclomatic 20) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.

Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

12 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation at 81.

HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cognitive 81)src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.cs:33

ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.TransformWithSymbol (cognitive 41)src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs:74

KurrentDBEventStore.EnumerateStream (cognitive 30)src/KurrentDB/src/Eventuous.KurrentDB/KurrentDBEventStore.cs:247

HttpCommandMappingGenerator.Execute (cognitive 28)src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandMappingGenerator.cs:116

HttpCommandMappingGenerator.DiscoverStateTypes (cognitive 27)src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandMappingGenerator.cs:71

+ 7 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 1 HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cognitive 81) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.TransformWithSymbol (cognitive 41) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 KurrentDBEventStore.EnumerateStream (cognitive 30) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with KurrentDBEventStore.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.5 / 10Stronggated by 26 serious findings✓ 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 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

26 duplicated block group(s) detected. 8 of the 26 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×3src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus/Subscriptions/ServiceBusSubscription.cs:182

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×3src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs:128

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×2src/Extensions/src/Eventuous.Extensions.DependencyInjection/Registrations/Services.cs:22

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×2src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/AggregateService/CommandService.cs:108

Duplicated block (25 lines × 2)src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/Persistence/WriterExtensions.cs:42

+ 15 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with ServiceBusSubscription.cs, SqlEventStoreBase.cs, SqlServerCheckpointStore.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with EventUsageAnalyzer.cs, Stores.cs, Program.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Services.cs, RegistrationExtensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling9.8 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure

Off the main sequence: Eventuous.Diagnostics.Logging(net10.0) · ×6

What to do

Resolve the 1 Layer violation finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 6 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.9 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ 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 96 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: AllocationHotspotsBenchmarks (LCOM4 8)src/Benchmarks/Benchmarks/AllocationHotspotsBenchmarks.cs:11

What to do

Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with AllocationHotspotsBenchmarks.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

1373 test methods: 728 unit, 645 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality9.7 / 10Stronggated by 15 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 9 zero-assertion, 6 synchronised by a fixed sleep, 1 mock references across 461 tests.

No assertions: should_produce_payment_registered · ×9src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests/Aggregates/OperateOnExistingSpec.cs:13

Fixed-sleep synchronisation: Concurrent_commits_all_land · ×6src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests.Subscriptions/CheckpointCommitHandlerLifecycleTests.cs:104

Mock framework: NSubstitute

What to do

Resolve the 9 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with TwoAggregateOpsSpec.cs (3), OperateOnExistingSpec.cs (2), OperateOnAggregateWithId.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Fixed-sleep synchronisation finding(s) in Test Quality — start with SubscriptionGatewayTests.cs (4), CheckpointCommitHandlerLifecycleTests.cs, SignalREndToEndTests.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene7.0 / 10Strong✓ 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 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

58 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 1 deprecated, 2 prerelease packages.

Prerelease dependency: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Prometheus.AspNetCore · ×2

Deprecated: NEST

Outdated: Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub · ×58

What to do

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

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 29 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: every package graded here is one this repository's MSBuild projects declare as a direct `PackageReference` (78 declared), and nothing beyond them was reached — this is the DECLARATION-SITE set, NOT the transitive closure. .NET has no lockfile a checkout is guaranteed to carry and this pass grades an unrestored tree, so a banned licence that only a direct dependency's OWN dependencies pull in is outside this verdict, exactly as the JVM arm's declaration-site verdict is.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.9 / 10Stronggated by 5 serious findings✓ 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Top hotspots: src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/Subscriptions/SqlSubscriptionBase.cs (5×17=85); src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/EventSubscription.cs (5×15=75); src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs (2×30=60) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Channels/ChannelWorkerBase.cs (3 of 4 changes were fixes)

Hotspot: src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/Subscriptions/SqlSubscriptionBase.cs · ×4src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/Subscriptions/SqlSubscriptionBase.cs:82

Repeated repair: src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Channels/ChannelWorkerBase.cssrc/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Channels/ChannelWorkerBase.cs:29

What to do

Resolve the 4 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with SqlSubscriptionBase.cs, EventSubscription.cs, EventUsageAnalyzer.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with ChannelWorkerBase.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt7.9 / 10Adequategated by 8 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

58 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 22371 LoC in the .NET projects (1.1/KLoC) → score 7.9.

NoWarnInCsproj · ×6src/Sqlite/test/Eventuous.Tests.Sqlite/Eventuous.Tests.Sqlite.csproj:6

FileScopedPragmaDisablesrc/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/Polyfills/Range.cs:7

WriteOnlyPrivateFieldsrc/Core/src/Eventuous.Persistence/StateStore/StateStore.cs:12

BarePragmaDisable · ×15src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/EventSubscriptionWithCheckpoint.cs:44

BareSuppressMessage · ×8src/Azure/test/Eventuous.Tests.Azure.ServiceBus/TestSetup.cs:9

+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 6 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Directory.Build.props (2), Eventuous.Tests.Sqlite.csproj, Eventuous.Tests.Postgres.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 FileScopedPragmaDisable finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Range.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 WriteOnlyPrivateField finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with StateStore.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D18 · Solution Shape9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

216 projects, 2166 source files, 37409 hand-written lines of code (22371 production / 15038 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), 1983 inter-project edges.

Shell project: Eventuous(net10.0)src/Core/src/Eventuous/Eventuous.csproj

Thin analysable surface across projects

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ 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 Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Clear documentation for Eventuous covering the library's purpose, news, community, a YouTube video intro, docs site, NuGet packages, stats, support channels, and several sample projects (Bookings.Postgres, Bookings.KurrentDB), plus an extensive benchmarks directory. The README is well written with value-added content such as the licensing line and the 'You will find some of the documentation articles published there' note about cross-referencing the blog; the architecture/Docs markdown files are also present but not shown in this summary. Clear and complete documentation for the Eventuous project: 15 README-style plan files plus architecture/design docs (13) cover every major feature with detailed design rationale, task-by-task implementation plans, code samples, and a full outline. XML-doc coverage is low (<20%), reflecting the focus on narrative planning over generated API references. Clear documentation for a feature-rich project. The READMEs and architecture/design docs are well-organized with headings (e.g., 'Eventuous SignalR Subscription Gateway', 'Source Generator Event Type Detection Fixes') and the visible portion of each document is complete: problem statement, proposed solution, code changes, directory structure, marketplace catalog, and an outline for every named section. Coverage figures reflect a strong XML-doc presence but are not used to flag missing content.

Documentation: no installation or build instructions · ×3README.md

XML-doc coverage: Benchmarks(net10.0) · ×46src/Benchmarks/Benchmarks/Benchmarks.csproj

What to do

Resolve the 3 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).

Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D24 · Comment ValueExemplary◐ 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 Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

redundant commentsrc/Azure/test/Eventuous.Tests.Azure.Storage.Blobs/Fixtures/IntegrationFixture.cs:13

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 of 80 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability9.1 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

87 % of calls cross a namespace and 4 % go through an interface, but 94 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.

Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged REDACTED. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)2.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

26 finding(s): 0 critical, 25 high, 1 medium, 0 low. 18 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 119 file(s) — `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings.Payments/Application/CommandApi.cs` (line 10), `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Application/BookingsQueryService.cs` (line 10), `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/HttpApi/Bookings/CommandApi.cs` (line 15), `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/HttpApi/Bookings/CommandApiWithCustomResult.cs` (line 18), `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/HttpApi/Bookings/QueryApi.cs` (line 8), … (+114 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. In 107 of those file(s) — `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings.Payments/Application/CommandApi.cs`, `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Application/BookingsQueryService.cs`, `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/HttpApi/Bookings/CommandApi.cs`, `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/HttpApi/Bookings/CommandApiWithCustomResult.cs`, `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/HttpApi/Bookings/QueryApi.cs`, … (+102 more) — the break is a C# primary constructor, which semgrep's grammar cannot parse and which hides the type from every rule scoped to it; those files were re-scanned from a shadow copy with the constructor's parameter list blanked (line and column preserving), which restores the type to the rules, and 0 additional row(s) came from that pass. Only the header's own parameter list is unread in them. In 18 of those file(s) — `src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/AggregateService/CommandService.cs`, `src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/Exceptions/Exceptions.cs`, `src/Core/src/Eventuous.Diagnostics/DummyActivityListener.cs`, `src/Core/src/Eventuous.Domain/Exceptions/DomainException.cs`, `src/Core/src/Eventuous.Domain/Exceptions/Exceptions.cs`, … (+13 more) — the break is at a TYPE DECLARATION (a C# primary constructor semgrep's grammar cannot parse), so the loss is wider than the named lines: rules scoped to that type see no type to scope to and are blind over its whole body, while rules matching statements keep working there. Absence of a type-scoped finding in those types is not evidence of anything. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 7 REDACTED finding(s) charged to Static Analysis (SAST) — the other 18 are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which charges them once. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (25 issue-level, 7 of them charged here).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities9.4 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir/Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex, Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 REDACTED CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security6.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (Dockerfile/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

24 finding(s): 0 critical, 5 high, 19 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 19 REDACTED IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (19). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 REDACTED IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 150 of the 403 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.9 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ 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. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

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

Strongest change-coupling: EventuousDiagnostics.cs↔MeterProviderBuilderExtensions.cs 55%; EventSubscription.cs↔AsyncHandlingFilter.cs 54%

Change coupling: EventuousDiagnostics.cs ↔ MeterProviderBuilderExtensions.cs · ×2src/Core/src/Eventuous.Diagnostics/EventuousDiagnostics.cs

What to do

Resolve the 2 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with EventuousDiagnostics.cs, EventSubscription.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

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

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D39 · IL Efficiency10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Method: IL instruction count per method, read from the BUILT first-party assemblies via Mono.Cecil (the target is compiled on a deep run); scored on the fraction of methods whose emitted IL body exceeds the size threshold. Sees compiler-generated bloat source can't; not-applicable when the target fails to build. Deterministic.

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

5 of 2233 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.

IL efficiency: 5 authored method(s) exceed the IL budgetsrc/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandMappingGenerator.cs:117

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d39_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D43 · Malicious Dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.

Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.

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

No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 6 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition8.8 / 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. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.

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, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX2 · Stateful singletons6.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`TypeMapper` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_reverseMap, _map; e.g. `_reverseMap` at line 85). — src/Core/src/Eventuous.Shared/TypeMap/TypeMapper.cs:37

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX4 · Dependency direction7.4 / 10Strong✓ 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.

`Eventuous.Application` is a Application project but references `Eventuous.Persistence`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.

What to do

Keep dependencies pointing inward: domain/application define interfaces, infrastructure/web implement them (Dependency Inversion).

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX6 · Interface segregation9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. Deterministic, type-level.

`IBaseConsumeContext` declares 16 members: `MessageId`, `MessageType`, `ContentType`, `Stream`, `EventNumber`, `StreamPosition`, `GlobalPosition`, `Created`, `Metadata`, `Items`, `ParentContext`, `HandlingResults`, `CancellationToken`, `Sequence`, `SubscriptionId`, `LogContext`. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. 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. — src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Context/IMessageConsumeContext.cs:13

What to do

Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

C2 · Access Controls10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — a framework authorization attribute/decorator or policy, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM1 · Aggregate boundaries10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates reference each other by identity (id) rather than by direct object reference — the core DDD consistency-boundary rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): aggregate roots identified by convention; each aggregate field checked for direct references to other aggregates versus id-only. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: aggregate roots identified by AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot base/interface NAME convention; reference-by-identity then checked exhaustively within that set — a root not using those names is invisible.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM10 · One transaction, one aggregate10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether a single operation mutates more than one aggregate root. An aggregate is a consistency boundary, so saving two together fuses them into one — the second's invariants come to depend on the first's transaction, and the pair can no longer be separated. Reads of other aggregates are not counted.

Method: Neutral body surface (DDD-gated): every method body scanned for repository WRITE calls (Add/Update/Save/Remove/Delete/Insert/Store and their async forms), keyed on the ARGUMENT type rather than the repository type — three `IRepository<T>` writes collapse to one repository but are three distinct aggregates. Reads (Get/Find/Load/Query) are excluded, so loading another aggregate for context never counts. Score is offending methods over methods that write at all. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM11 · Constructible invalid state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether an aggregate can be constructed in a state its own rules forbid — a public constructor that takes a raw primitive, stores it, and validates nothing, with no factory beside it. A constructor taking only value objects is not counted: each parameter has already validated itself.

Method: Neutral surface (DDD-gated): each non-abstract entity/aggregate checked for a PUBLIC constructor taking at least one RAW PRIMITIVE parameter whose body contains no guard token (throw / Guard. / Ensure. / ArgumentException / CheckRule), on a type that also offers no static Create/Of/From/New factory. A constructor taking only value objects is never charged -- measured: 64 of 87 unguarded public constructors on the C# corpus take value objects only, so ignoring parameter types would be 73% false positives. One finding per entity. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM12 · Ambient inputs in the domain10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether domain types receive the time and randomness their rules depend on, rather than reading the process clock or a global random source directly — an ambient read makes the rule it feeds untestable at the instant that matters and lets two reads inside one operation disagree.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated, C#/VB only): domain-layer types scanned for ambient reads — DateTime/DateTimeOffset.Now/UtcNow/Today, Random.Shared, new Random(), Stopwatch.GetTimestamp — resolved against the semantic model, with a comment/string-stripped token fallback only where resolution fails. Body reads are scored; field/property initialisers are surfaced unscored. Apply/When folds excluded (ES1 owns them). Deterministic, symbol-resolved.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM5 · Encapsulated state10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state — private/init-only setters, and collections handed out as read-only views rather than the mutable backing collection — instead of exposing writable state that bypasses invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entities scanned for publicly writable state — public setters, and (C#/VB) own mutable collections handed out through an auto-property, a public field or a bare-field expression getter, where a computed/copying getter is never charged. One finding per entity; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies (EF/Marten/HTTP/ASP.NET) — the clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM8 · Value-object opportunities9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.

The parameters [bookingprice, currency, guestid, outstandingamount, prepaidamount, roomid] travel together across 8 signatures and were confirmed as a coherent concept by the model — that's a missing value object. Extracting them into one type (e.g. `Address`, `Money`, `Coordinate`) removes repetition, prevents argument-order mistakes, and gives the concept a home for its rules. — samples/kurrentdb/Bookings.Domain/Bookings/BookingEvents.cs:10
The parameters [currency, outstanding, paidamount, paidby, paymentid] travel together across 8 signatures and were confirmed as a coherent concept by the model — that's a missing value object. Extracting them into one type (e.g. `Address`, `Money`, `Coordinate`) removes repetition, prevents argument-order mistakes, and gives the concept a home for its rules. — samples/kurrentdb/Bookings.Domain/Bookings/BookingEvents.cs:23

What to do

Extract recurring primitive parameter clusters into value objects so the concept (and its rules) lives in one place.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM9 · Scattered domain decisions9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether one domain rule is decided — or one measurement produced — in more than one place, rather than living on the type that owns it.

Method: Neutral body surface plus Roslyn (DDD-gated), two arms. DECISION (Roslyn only): a predicate over a domain type's members judged in two or more types, where none of those decisions live on the owning type — operands of comparisons and relational property patterns only, so a member merely passed as an argument is not judged. DERIVATION: a plain all-numeric carrier of ≥2 members, with no base type and exactly one constructor, CONSTRUCTED as the result of a method (returned or assigned, never inline as an argument) in two or more types other than its own — the same measurement produced twice, which centralising the judgement does not fix. DERIVATION runs on every language whose frontend declares the produced-or-passed fact per construction (Roslyn and the Java sidecar today); a target with only the derivation arm carries an engine gap naming the decision arm as not assessed, and a frontend that declares nothing keeps the dimension not measured rather than clean. Single-member rules, test code and generated code are out of population for both. Advisory.

Azure.RequestFailedException's [ErrorCode, Status] are judged in Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs.BlobStorageProjector<T>, Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs.BlobStorageProjector<T>.Handler<TEvent> — the same decision, restated. Every copy is a chance to drift, and copies drift silently because each one looks correct on its own. Move the judgement onto the type that owns the members and let the call sites ask it.
System.Diagnostics.Activity's [Current, Status] are judged in Eventuous.Subscriptions.Context.ContextResultExtensions, Eventuous.Subscriptions.Context.ContextResultExtensions.extension(Eventuous.Subscriptions.Context.IBaseConsumeContext) — the same decision, restated. Every copy is a chance to drift, and copies drift silently because each one looks correct on its own. Move the judgement onto the type that owns the members and let the call sites ask it.

What to do

Move each repeated judgement onto the type that owns the members it reads, so the rule has one home and cannot drift.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED5 · Idempotency5.3 / 10Adequate◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

`Base.TestEventHandler.HandleEvent` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests.Subscriptions.Base/Fixtures/TestEventHandler.cs:57

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×5) — src/Kafka/src/Eventuous.Kafka/Subscriptions/KafkaBasicSubscription.cs:12, src/Experimental/src/Eventuous.ElasticSearch/Store/ElasticEventStore.cs:107, src/Experimental/src/Eventuous.ElasticSearch/Store/ElasticEventStore.cs:114, …

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

`TruncateStream` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — src/Experimental/src/Eventuous.ElasticSearch/Store/ElasticEventStore.cs:107
`DeleteStream` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — src/Experimental/src/Eventuous.ElasticSearch/Store/ElasticEventStore.cs:114, src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/SqlEventStoreBase.cs:261
`Connect` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — src/Kafka/src/Eventuous.Kafka/Subscriptions/KafkaBasicSubscription.cs:12
`ReadEventsBackwards` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — src/Redis/src/Eventuous.Redis/RedisStore.cs:93
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×13) — src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Filters/AsyncHandlingFilter.cs:114, src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Filters/AsyncHandlingFilter.cs:115, src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Filters/PartitioningFilter.cs:37, …

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)6.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a 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 68 of 80 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.7 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, 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.

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 each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability8.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 29/48 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 48, 7 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

What to do

Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 11095 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Deployment is orchestrated by compose, but no service declares a `healthcheck:` and nothing pins a previous image to fall back to — the runtime can tell that the container is up, not that it is serving, so a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
Deployment is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever reaches the release trigger goes to production unreviewed, so a mistaken merge or tag is live before anyone can stop it.

What to do

Add a `healthcheck:` to the served compose service — probing the endpoint it already answers on where it has one — with `depends_on: condition: service_healthy` on whatever waits for it, and keep the deployed image tag immutable and recorded so rolling back is re-pointing at the previous tag rather than rebuilding.
Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P5 · DR & Backup7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.

Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.

What to do

Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

2 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

S1 · Web-Security Posture6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)

What to do

Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
Enforce HTTPS at the app layer (UseHttpsRedirection / UseHsts) — only skip this if a reverse proxy demonstrably terminates TLS.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness7.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process. (×2) — src/Kafka/src/Eventuous.Kafka/Producers/KafkaBasicProducer.cs:75, src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Diagnostics/SubscriptionMetrics.cs:115

What to do

Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)

Do you agree with this assessment?

X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 151/194 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×23) — src/Benchmarks/Benchmarks/SubscriptionMessageProcessingBenchmarks.cs:64, src/Benchmarks/Benchmarks/SubscriptionMessageProcessingBenchmarks.cs:69, src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus/Subscriptions/ServiceBusSubscription.cs:42, …
No CancellationToken parameter — the body observes an ambient token instead (a field or a context object), so the work does stop on cancellation, but a caller cannot cancel this call independently of the owner that created that token. (×16) — src/Benchmarks/Benchmarks/SubscriptionMessageProcessingBenchmarks.cs:76, src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs/BlobStorageProjector.cs:136, src/RabbitMq/src/Eventuous.RabbitMq/Subscriptions/RabbitMqSubscription.cs:178, …

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.

Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling7.7 / 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.

`catch (Exception)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — src/Core/src/Eventuous.Diagnostics/Tags/TracingMeta.cs:30

What to do

Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded)

Do you agree with this assessment?

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

~1.2 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 146 suppression(s) across the 117389 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	78%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	83%	Strong	Solid.
Maturity	74%	Strong	Solid.
Readiness	57%	Adequate	Largest drag on the score — prioritise here.
Security	73%	Adequate — gated by D29, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Performance	85%	Exemplary	Solid.

Unscored — 3 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

P12 CI test-gate honesty — 1 observation(s) recorded · Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — 5 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

Not included — 37 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.
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Cross-context type coupling could not be assessed — this codebase's bounded contexts are neither declared nor inferable.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 108 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
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.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
DM4 Rich vs anemic model — no data-bearing entities detected — rich-vs-anemic model not assessable
DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 67 event handler(s); a message-bus package
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (an append-only event-store seam (IEventStore/Append-of-events))
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) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

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.

Critical — 41 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×25

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×6

NoWarnInCsproj src/Sqlite/test/Eventuous.Tests.Sqlite/Eventuous.Tests.Sqlite.csproj:6 — CA1822 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Postgres/test/Eventuous.Tests.Postgres/Eventuous.Tests.Postgres.csproj:7 — CA1822 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/Eventuous.Sql.Base.csproj:3 — CS8524 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/KurrentDB/src/Eventuous.KurrentDB/Eventuous.KurrentDB.csproj:3 — CA2254 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Directory.Build.props:5 — CS1591 — this project generates an XML documentation file as a build output, so its documentation is something it PUBLISHES to whoever consumes the assembly, and this entry switches off a rule whose only job is to report that documentation missing or malformed. The two decisions sit in the same file and the quiet one wins: the documentation this project ships has holes exactly where the rule would have pointed, no build says so, and the people who meet the gap are downstream — in their editor, at the moment they are trying to use the member. Write the documentation the rule is asking for and drop the code from the list; where only some elements genuinely cannot carry it, narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rest of the API stays covered. If the documentation was never meant to be consumed, the honest fix is the other line — stop generating the file, so the project no longer publishes something it is choosing not to check.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Directory.Build.props:5 — CS0618 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · REDACTED IaC · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

AX4 · Dependency direction · Dependency-rule violation · ×1

Dependency-rule violation: Eventuous.Application (Application) → Eventuous.Persistence (Infrastructure) — `Eventuous.Application` is a Application project but references `Eventuous.Persistence`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.

D17 · Explicit Debt · FileScopedPragmaDisable · ×1

FileScopedPragmaDisable src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/Polyfills/Range.cs:7 — #pragma warning disable CS3019 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.

D17 · Explicit Debt · WriteOnlyPrivateField · ×1

WriteOnlyPrivateField src/Core/src/Eventuous.Persistence/StateStore/StateStore.cs:12 — private IEventSerializer _serializer — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED CVE · ×1

REDACTED

D5 · Coupling · Layer violation · ×1

Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure — Eventuous.Application (Application) references Eventuous.Persistence (Infrastructure) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).

Serious — 142 finding(s)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · REDACTED IaC · ×19

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable · ×15

BarePragmaDisable src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/EventSubscriptionWithCheckpoint.cs:44 — #pragma warning disable CS8524 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Logging/InternalLogger.cs:11 — #pragma warning disable CA2254 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Diagnostics/src/Eventuous.Diagnostics.Logging/LoggingEventListener.cs:48 — #pragma warning disable CA2254 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/KurrentDB/src/Eventuous.KurrentDB/KurrentDBEventStore.cs:286 — #pragma warning disable CA2254 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/KurrentDB/src/Eventuous.KurrentDB/KurrentDBEventStore.cs:361 — #pragma warning disable CA2254 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests.Subscriptions/CompositionHandlerTests.cs:117 — #pragma warning disable CA1822 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/KurrentDB/src/Eventuous.KurrentDB/Subscriptions/PersistentSubscriptionBase.cs:175 — #pragma warning disable CA1822 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests/ForgotToSetId.cs:25 — #pragma warning disable EVTC001 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Diagnostics/test/Eventuous.Tests.OpenTelemetry/Fakes/TestExporter.cs:13 — #pragma warning disable CS8767 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Extensions/test/Eventuous.Sut.AspNetCore/Program.cs:22 — #pragma warning disable ASP0027 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Extensions/test/Eventuous.Tests.Extensions.AspNetCore/AggregateCommandsTests.cs:60 — #pragma warning disable EVTA001 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/KurrentDB/src/Eventuous.KurrentDB/Subscriptions/StreamSubscription.cs:79 — #pragma warning disable CA2208 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/RabbitMq/test/Eventuous.Tests.RabbitMq/CustomQueueSubscriptionSpec.cs:17 — #pragma warning disable TUnit0023 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/RabbitMq/test/Eventuous.Tests.RabbitMq/HandlerFailureSpec.cs:28 — #pragma warning disable TUnit0023 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/RabbitMq/test/Eventuous.Tests.RabbitMq/SubscriptionSpec.cs:17 — #pragma warning disable TUnit0023 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×9

No assertions: should_produce_payment_registered src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests/Aggregates/OperateOnExistingSpec.cs:13 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: should_produce_outstanding_changed src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests/Aggregates/OperateOnExistingSpec.cs:16 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: should_produce_fully_paid_event src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests/Aggregates/TwoAggregateOpsSpec.cs:20 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: should_produce_payment_registered src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests/Aggregates/TwoAggregateOpsSpec.cs:23 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: should_produce_outstanding_changed src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests/Aggregates/TwoAggregateOpsSpec.cs:26 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: should_emit_event src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests/AggregateWithId/OperateOnAggregateWithId.cs:12 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: Test src/Gateway/test/Eventuous.Tests.Gateway/RegistrationTests.cs:18 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: AppendedEventShouldBeTraced src/KurrentDB/test/Eventuous.Tests.KurrentDB/Store/AggregateStoreTests.cs:21 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: Sqlite_ShouldTolerateRepeatedUnsubscribe src/Sqlite/test/Eventuous.Tests.Sqlite/Subscriptions/SubscriptionRestartTests.cs:31 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.

D17 · Explicit Debt · BareSuppressMessage · ×8

BareSuppressMessage src/Azure/test/Eventuous.Tests.Azure.ServiceBus/TestSetup.cs:9 — SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Logging/Logger.cs:34 — SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests.Subscriptions.Base/TestSetup.cs:9 — SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests.Subscriptions/DefaultConsumerTests.cs:9 — SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests.Subscriptions/TestSetup.cs:9 — SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/Gateway/test/Eventuous.Tests.Gateway/TestSetup.cs:9 — SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/SignalR/test/Eventuous.Tests.SignalR.Integration/TestSetup.cs:9 — SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/SignalR/test/Eventuous.Tests.SignalR/TestSetup.cs:9 — SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.

D10 · Test Quality · Fixed-sleep synchronisation · ×6

Fixed-sleep synchronisation: Concurrent_commits_all_land src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests.Subscriptions/CheckpointCommitHandlerLifecycleTests.cs:104 — This test starts a background task and then orders itself against it with `Task.Delay(20)` — a fixed wait, not a signal that the work is done. Whether it passes depends on how loaded the machine is, which is why a test written this way is green on a developer's box and random in CI. Wait for the event itself instead: the process's own exit or output, a completion handle, or a condition polled to a timeout.
Fixed-sleep synchronisation: LiveEvents_DeliveredAfterSubscribe src/SignalR/test/Eventuous.Tests.SignalR.Integration/SignalREndToEndTests.cs:169 — This test starts a background task and then orders itself against it with `Task.Delay(1000)` — a fixed wait, not a signal that the work is done. Whether it passes depends on how loaded the machine is, which is why a test written this way is green on a developer's box and random in CI. Wait for the event itself instead: the process's own exit or output, a completion handle, or a condition polled to a timeout.
Fixed-sleep synchronisation: SubscribeAsync_CreatesSubscriptionViaFactory src/SignalR/test/Eventuous.Tests.SignalR/SubscriptionGatewayTests.cs:56 — This test starts a background task and then orders itself against it with `Task.Delay(50)` — a fixed wait, not a signal that the work is done. Whether it passes depends on how loaded the machine is, which is why a test written this way is green on a developer's box and random in CI. Wait for the event itself instead: the process's own exit or output, a completion handle, or a condition polled to a timeout.
Fixed-sleep synchronisation: UnsubscribeAsync_RemovesSubscription src/SignalR/test/Eventuous.Tests.SignalR/SubscriptionGatewayTests.cs:66 — This test starts a background task and then orders itself against it with `Task.Delay(50)` — a fixed wait, not a signal that the work is done. Whether it passes depends on how loaded the machine is, which is why a test written this way is green on a developer's box and random in CI. Wait for the event itself instead: the process's own exit or output, a completion handle, or a condition polled to a timeout.
Fixed-sleep synchronisation: RemoveConnectionAsync_CleansUpAllSubscriptions src/SignalR/test/Eventuous.Tests.SignalR/SubscriptionGatewayTests.cs:80 — This test starts a background task and then orders itself against it with `Task.Delay(50)` — a fixed wait, not a signal that the work is done. Whether it passes depends on how loaded the machine is, which is why a test written this way is green on a developer's box and random in CI. Wait for the event itself instead: the process's own exit or output, a completion handle, or a condition polled to a timeout.
Fixed-sleep synchronisation: DuplicateSubscribe_ReplacesPrevious src/SignalR/test/Eventuous.Tests.SignalR/SubscriptionGatewayTests.cs:102 — This test starts a background task and then orders itself against it with `Task.Delay(50)` — a fixed wait, not a signal that the work is done. Whether it passes depends on how loaded the machine is, which is why a test written this way is green on a developer's box and random in CI. Wait for the event itself instead: the process's own exit or output, a completion handle, or a condition polled to a timeout.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×6

Off the main sequence: Eventuous.Diagnostics.Logging(net10.0) — Eventuous.Diagnostics.Logging(net10.0): abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 5 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: Eventuous.TestHelpers.TUnit(net9.0) — Eventuous.TestHelpers.TUnit(net9.0): abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: Eventuous.TestHelpers(net9.0) — Eventuous.TestHelpers(net9.0): abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: Eventuous.Shared(net10.0) — Eventuous.Shared(net10.0): abstractness 0.10, instability 0.03, distance 0.88 — the shape a shared-kernel / building-block library has BY DESIGN — concrete and widely depended-on is what makes it useful, and this dimension does not penalise it (the distance is reported for completeness, not as a defect). Worth a look only if it has grown past one coherent kernel into an everything-bucket.
Off the main sequence: Eventuous.Diagnostics(net10.0) — Eventuous.Diagnostics(net10.0): abstractness 0.07, instability 0.06, distance 0.87 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 32 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: Eventuous.Extensions.Logging(net10.0) — Eventuous.Extensions.Logging(net10.0): abstractness 0.00, instability 0.20, distance 0.80 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code · Unfinished stub · ×5

Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Kafka/src/Eventuous.Kafka/Subscriptions/KafkaBasicSubscription.cs:12 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Experimental/src/Eventuous.ElasticSearch/Store/ElasticEventStore.cs:107 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Experimental/src/Eventuous.ElasticSearch/Store/ElasticEventStore.cs:114 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Redis/src/Eventuous.Redis/RedisStore.cs:93 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/SqlEventStoreBase.cs:261 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Unfinished stub · ×5

Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Experimental/src/Eventuous.ElasticSearch/Store/ElasticEventStore.cs:107 — `TruncateStream` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Experimental/src/Eventuous.ElasticSearch/Store/ElasticEventStore.cs:114 — `DeleteStream` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Kafka/src/Eventuous.Kafka/Subscriptions/KafkaBasicSubscription.cs:12 — `Connect` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Redis/src/Eventuous.Redis/RedisStore.cs:93 — `ReadEventsBackwards` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/SqlEventStoreBase.cs:261 — `DeleteStream` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×4

Hotspot: src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/Subscriptions/SqlSubscriptionBase.cs src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/Subscriptions/SqlSubscriptionBase.cs:82 — src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/Subscriptions/SqlSubscriptionBase.cs changed 5 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 17 in SqlSubscriptionBase.Poll at line 82. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 15:50:06 +02:00' --until='2026-09-20 15:50:06 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/Subscriptions/SqlSubscriptionBase.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/EventSubscription.cs src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/EventSubscription.cs:232 — src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/EventSubscription.cs changed 5 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 15 in EventSubscription.Handler at line 232. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 15:50:06 +02:00' --until='2026-09-20 15:50:06 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/EventSubscription.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs:118 — src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs changed 2 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 30 in EventUsageAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation at line 118. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 1 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 15:50:06 +02:00' --until='2026-09-20 15:50:06 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs:74 — src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs changed 2 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 20 in ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.TransformWithSymbol at line 74. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 1 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 15:50:06 +02:00' --until='2026-09-20 15:50:06 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×3

CommentedOutCode src/Diagnostics/test/Eventuous.Tests.OpenTelemetry/MetricsTests.cs:25 — 10 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/KurrentDB/test/Eventuous.Tests.KurrentDB/Subscriptions/StreamSubscriptionWithLinksTests.cs:85 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Mongo/src/Eventuous.Projections.MongoDB/Operations/UpdateBuilder.cs:29 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus/Subscriptions/ServiceBusSubscription.cs:182 — src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus/Subscriptions/ServiceBusSubscription.cs:182-189 | src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus/Subscriptions/ServiceBusSubscription.cs:209-216 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/SqlEventStoreBase.cs:212 — src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/SqlEventStoreBase.cs:212-219 | src/Sqlite/src/Eventuous.Sqlite/SqliteStore.cs:112-119 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/SqlEventStoreBase.cs:212` 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/SqlServer/src/Eventuous.SqlServer/Subscriptions/SqlServerCheckpointStore.cs:23 — src/SqlServer/src/Eventuous.SqlServer/Subscriptions/SqlServerCheckpointStore.cs:23-30 | src/Sqlite/src/Eventuous.Sqlite/Subscriptions/SqliteCheckpointStore.cs:23-30 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs:128 — src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs:128-133 | src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs:163-168 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs:128` 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.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Extensions/src/Eventuous.Extensions.DependencyInjection/Registrations/Stores.cs:127 — src/Extensions/src/Eventuous.Extensions.DependencyInjection/Registrations/Stores.cs:127-132 | src/Extensions/src/Eventuous.Extensions.DependencyInjection/Registrations/Stores.cs:150-155 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Extensions/src/Eventuous.Extensions.DependencyInjection/Registrations/Stores.cs:127` 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. 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.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) samples/postgres/Bookings.Payments/Program.cs:46 — samples/postgres/Bookings.Payments/Program.cs:46-51 | samples/postgres/Bookings/Program.cs:50-55 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Prerelease dependency · ×2

Prerelease dependency: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Prometheus.AspNetCore — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Prometheus.AspNetCore resolves to 1.15.3-beta.1, a prerelease build. Prerelease packages carry no support policy, may change breaking between previews and can be unlisted — pin a stable release before shipping, or record the reason this preview is required.
Prerelease dependency: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.GrpcNetClient — OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.GrpcNetClient resolves to 1.15.1-beta.1, a prerelease build. Prerelease packages carry no support policy, may change breaking between previews and can be unlisted — pin a stable release before shipping, or record the reason this preview is required.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×2

TodoComment src/Extensions/src/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore/Http/CommandMappingRegistry.cs:22 — // TODO: Figure out what to do with it — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Mongo/src/Eventuous.Projections.MongoDB/Operations/UpdateBuilder.cs:28 — // TODO: Make this an option (idempotence based on commit position) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×2

Change coupling: EventuousDiagnostics.cs ↔ MeterProviderBuilderExtensions.cs src/Core/src/Eventuous.Diagnostics/EventuousDiagnostics.cs — `src/Core/src/Eventuous.Diagnostics/EventuousDiagnostics.cs` and `src/Diagnostics/src/Eventuous.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry/MeterProviderBuilderExtensions.cs` change together 55% of the time (6 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). 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. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `efb66b3c` fix(diagnostics): respect sampling regardless of initialization order…; `4fc36479` Fixing metrics (#175); `b6dafe68` Pre release cleanup (#68) (at that commit the file was still `src/Diagnostics/src/Eventuous.Diagnostics/EventuousDiagnostics.cs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: EventSubscription.cs ↔ AsyncHandlingFilter.cs src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/EventSubscription.cs — `src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/EventSubscription.cs` and `src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Filters/AsyncHandlingFilter.cs` change together 54% of the time (7 of the 13 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). 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. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `65e358c5` Optimise structs; `608feda3` - Fixes remaining logging issues (#143); `35cf1f64` Further trace issue investigation (at that commit the file was still `src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Filters/ConcurrentFilter.cs`) — run `git show` on any of them.

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

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Extensions/src/Eventuous.Extensions.DependencyInjection/Registrations/Services.cs:22 — src/Extensions/src/Eventuous.Extensions.DependencyInjection/Registrations/Services.cs:22-32 | src/Extensions/src/Eventuous.Extensions.DependencyInjection/Registrations/Services.cs:43-53 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/SqlServer/src/Eventuous.SqlServer/Extensions/RegistrationExtensions.cs:76 — src/SqlServer/src/Eventuous.SqlServer/Extensions/RegistrationExtensions.cs:76-86 | src/Sqlite/src/Eventuous.Sqlite/Extensions/RegistrationExtensions.cs:76-86 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/SqlServer/src/Eventuous.SqlServer/Extensions/RegistrationExtensions.cs:76` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, 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 (5 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/AggregateService/CommandService.cs:108 — src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/AggregateService/CommandService.cs:108-112 | src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/FunctionalService/CommandService.cs:110-114 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/AggregateService/CommandService.cs:106` calls `Create` and `src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/FunctionalService/CommandService.cs:108` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/HttpApi/Bookings/QueryApi.cs:13 — samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/HttpApi/Bookings/QueryApi.cs:13-17 | samples/postgres/Bookings/HttpApi/Bookings/QueryApi.cs:13-17 — before extracting anything, compare `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/HttpApi/Bookings/QueryApi.cs` and `samples/postgres/Bookings/HttpApi/Bookings/QueryApi.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 91% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

X1 · Async correctness · Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) · ×2

Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/Kafka/src/Eventuous.Kafka/Producers/KafkaBasicProducer.cs:75 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Diagnostics/SubscriptionMetrics.cs:115 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.

AX2 · Stateful singletons · Stateful singleton · ×1

Stateful singleton: TypeMapper src/Core/src/Eventuous.Shared/TypeMap/TypeMapper.cs:37 — `TypeMapper` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_reverseMap, _map; e.g. `_reverseMap` at line 85).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cyclomatic 41) · ×1

HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cyclomatic 41) src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.cs:33 — HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation has cyclomatic complexity 41 (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 · EventUsageAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cyclomatic 30) · ×1

EventUsageAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cyclomatic 30) src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs:118 — EventUsageAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation 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 · ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.TransformWithSymbol (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.TransformWithSymbol (cyclomatic 20) src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs:74 — ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.TransformWithSymbol has cyclomatic complexity 20 (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 · Handler.Handle (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

Handler.Handle (cyclomatic 19) src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs/BlobStorageProjector.cs:136 — Handler.Handle 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 · SqlSubscriptionBase.Poll (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

SqlSubscriptionBase.Poll (cyclomatic 17) src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/Subscriptions/SqlSubscriptionBase.cs:82 — SqlSubscriptionBase.Poll 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 · SetupIndex.AddTier (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

SetupIndex.AddTier (cyclomatic 16) src/Experimental/src/Eventuous.ElasticSearch/Index/IndexSetup.cs:91 — SetupIndex.AddTier has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 8 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×1

Deprecated: NEST — NEST 7.17.5 — Legacy — the publisher's replacement is `Elastic.Clients.Elasticsearch`; migrate the reference to it.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair · ×1

Repeated repair: src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Channels/ChannelWorkerBase.cs src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Channels/ChannelWorkerBase.cs:29 — src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Channels/ChannelWorkerBase.cs changed 4 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 3 (its worst body is ChannelWorkerBase.Write at line 29), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “Fix resubscribe race (#571)”; “fix(subscriptions): harden the worker dispose failure path (#563)”; “fix(subscriptions): stop double-dispose crashing host shutdown (#562)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-22..2026-09-20, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-22 15:50:06 +02:00' --until='2026-09-20 15:50:06 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Channels/ChannelWorkerBase.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cognitive 81) · ×1

HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cognitive 81) src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.cs:33 — HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation has cognitive complexity 81 (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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.cs holds 2 of the 12 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 67 of the 172 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs at 26). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.TransformWithSymbol (cognitive 41) · ×1

ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.TransformWithSymbol (cognitive 41) src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs:74 — ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.TransformWithSymbol has cognitive complexity 41 (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 · KurrentDBEventStore.EnumerateStream (cognitive 30) · ×1

KurrentDBEventStore.EnumerateStream (cognitive 30) src/KurrentDB/src/Eventuous.KurrentDB/KurrentDBEventStore.cs:247 — KurrentDBEventStore.EnumerateStream 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 · HttpCommandMappingGenerator.Execute (cognitive 28) · ×1

HttpCommandMappingGenerator.Execute (cognitive 28) src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandMappingGenerator.cs:116 — HttpCommandMappingGenerator.Execute has cognitive complexity 28 (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 · HttpCommandMappingGenerator.DiscoverStateTypes (cognitive 27) · ×1

HttpCommandMappingGenerator.DiscoverStateTypes (cognitive 27) src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandMappingGenerator.cs:71 — HttpCommandMappingGenerator.DiscoverStateTypes has cognitive complexity 27 (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 · EventUsageAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cognitive 26) · ×1

EventUsageAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation (cognitive 26) src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs:118 — EventUsageAnalyzer.AnalyzeInvocation 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 · SqlSubscriptionBase.Poll (cognitive 25) · ×1

SqlSubscriptionBase.Poll (cognitive 25) src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/Subscriptions/SqlSubscriptionBase.cs:82 — SqlSubscriptionBase.Poll has cognitive complexity 25 (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 · Handler.Handle (cognitive 21) · ×1

Handler.Handle (cognitive 21) src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs/BlobStorageProjector.cs:136 — Handler.Handle 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 · ChannelExtensions.ReadAllBatches (cognitive 21) · ×1

ChannelExtensions.ReadAllBatches (cognitive 21) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Channels/ChannelExtensions.cs:65 — ChannelExtensions.ReadAllBatches 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 · EventSubscription.Handler (cognitive 20) · ×1

EventSubscription.Handler (cognitive 20) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/EventSubscription.cs:232 — EventSubscription.Handler has cognitive complexity 20 (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 · TypeMappingsGenerator.TryGetEventTypeName (cognitive 16) · ×1

TypeMappingsGenerator.TryGetEventTypeName (cognitive 16) src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/TypeMappingsGenerator.cs:120 — TypeMappingsGenerator.TryGetEventTypeName 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 · HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.GetHttpCommandStateTypeArg (cognitive 16) · ×1

HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.GetHttpCommandStateTypeArg (cognitive 16) src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.cs:149 — HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.GetHttpCommandStateTypeArg 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.cs holds 2 of the 12 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 67 of the 172 points over it (39%), 2.6× the next-largest file (src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs at 26). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

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

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/Persistence/WriterExtensions.cs:42 — src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/Persistence/WriterExtensions.cs:42-66 | src/Core/src/Eventuous.Persistence/EventStore/StoreFunctions.cs:64-88 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/Persistence/WriterExtensions.cs:42` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, 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 (20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/Redis/src/Eventuous.Redis/Subscriptions/RedisSubscriptionBase.cs:51 — src/Redis/src/Eventuous.Redis/Subscriptions/RedisSubscriptionBase.cs:51-70 | src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/Subscriptions/SqlSubscriptionBase.cs:229-248 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Redis/src/Eventuous.Redis/Subscriptions/RedisSubscriptionBase.cs:51` 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 (16–19 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (16–19 lines × 3) src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.cs:54 — src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.cs:54-72 | src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.cs:84-99 | src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.cs:129-146 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandStateMismatchAnalyzer.cs:54` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, 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 (9–19 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–19 lines × 2) src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/SqlEventStoreBase.cs:230 — src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/SqlEventStoreBase.cs:230-248 | src/Sqlite/src/Eventuous.Sqlite/SqliteStore.cs:132-140 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/SqlEventStoreBase.cs:230` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/Sqlite/src/Eventuous.Sqlite/SqliteStore.cs:130` calls `RollbackAsync`, `NoContext` and `src/Relational/src/Eventuous.Sql.Base/SqlEventStoreBase.cs:230` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–16 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–16 lines × 3) src/Postgres/src/Eventuous.Postgresql/Schema.cs:42 — src/Postgres/src/Eventuous.Postgresql/Schema.cs:42-57 | src/SqlServer/src/Eventuous.SqlServer/Schema.cs:37-51 | src/Sqlite/src/Eventuous.Sqlite/Schema.cs:34-44 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Postgres/src/Eventuous.Postgresql/Schema.cs:42` 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 (13–15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (13–15 lines × 2) src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/TypeMappingsGenerator.cs:240 — src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/TypeMappingsGenerator.cs:240-254 | src/Experimental/gen/Eventuous.Spyglass.Generators/SpyglassGenerator.cs:231-243 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/SqlServer/src/Eventuous.SqlServer/SchemaInitializer.cs:12 — src/SqlServer/src/Eventuous.SqlServer/SchemaInitializer.cs:12-25 | src/Sqlite/src/Eventuous.Sqlite/SchemaInitializer.cs:12-25 — before extracting anything, compare `src/SqlServer/src/Eventuous.SqlServer/SchemaInitializer.cs` and `src/Sqlite/src/Eventuous.Sqlite/SchemaInitializer.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 86% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/SqlServer/src/Eventuous.SqlServer/SchemaInitializer.cs:12` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs:78 — src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs:78-89 | src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs:108-118 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/ConsumeContextConverterGenerator.cs:78` 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 (12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/SqlServer/src/Eventuous.SqlServer/Subscriptions/SqlServerCheckpointStore.cs:43 — src/SqlServer/src/Eventuous.SqlServer/Subscriptions/SqlServerCheckpointStore.cs:43-54 | src/Sqlite/src/Eventuous.Sqlite/Subscriptions/SqliteCheckpointStore.cs:43-54 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/SqlServer/src/Eventuous.SqlServer/Subscriptions/SqlServerCheckpointStore.cs:43` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Experimental/src/ElasticPlayground/CombinedStore.cs:39 — src/Experimental/src/ElasticPlayground/CombinedStore.cs:39-47 | src/Experimental/src/ElasticPlayground/ConnectorAndArchive.cs:43-51 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Application/Queries/MyBookingsProjection.cs:8 — samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Application/Queries/MyBookingsProjection.cs:8-36 | samples/postgres/Bookings/Application/Queries/MyBookingsProjection.cs:8-36 — before extracting anything, compare `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Application/Queries/MyBookingsProjection.cs` and `samples/postgres/Bookings/Application/Queries/MyBookingsProjection.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Application/Queries/BookingStateProjection.cs:11 — samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Application/Queries/BookingStateProjection.cs:11-27 | samples/postgres/Bookings/Application/Queries/BookingStateProjection.cs:11-28 — before extracting anything, compare `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Application/Queries/BookingStateProjection.cs` and `samples/postgres/Bookings/Application/Queries/BookingStateProjection.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 89% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (10–14 lines × 2) samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Infrastructure/Mongo.cs:11 — samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Infrastructure/Mongo.cs:11-24 | samples/postgres/Bookings/Infrastructure/Mongo.cs:12-21 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Infrastructure/Mongo.cs:11` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, 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 (13 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Application/BookingsCommandService.cs:18 — samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Application/BookingsCommandService.cs:18-30 | samples/postgres/Bookings/Application/BookingsCommandService.cs:18-30 — before extracting anything, compare `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Application/BookingsCommandService.cs` and `samples/postgres/Bookings/Application/BookingsCommandService.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Application/BookingsCommandService.cs:18` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 2) samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Registrations.cs:32 — samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Registrations.cs:32-40 | samples/postgres/Bookings/Registrations.cs:31-41 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. 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.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Integration/Payments.cs:14 — samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Integration/Payments.cs:14-20 | samples/postgres/Bookings/Integration/Payments.cs:14-29 — before extracting anything, compare `samples/kurrentdb/Bookings/Integration/Payments.cs` and `samples/postgres/Bookings/Integration/Payments.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. 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: AllocationHotspotsBenchmarks (LCOM4 8) src/Benchmarks/Benchmarks/AllocationHotspotsBenchmarks.cs:11 — AllocationHotspotsBenchmarks's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.

ED5 · Idempotency · Non-idempotent mutation · ×1

Non-idempotent mutation: Base.TestEventHandler.HandleEvent src/Core/test/Eventuous.Tests.Subscriptions.Base/Fixtures/TestEventHandler.cs:57 — `Base.TestEventHandler.HandleEvent` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write.

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking · ×1

Sync-over-async blocking — 2 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).

X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×1

Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Diagnostics/Tags/TracingMeta.cs:30 — `catch (Exception)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.

Minor — 68 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithoutCallers · ×22

ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/AggregateService/CommandService.Async.cs:14 — [Obsolete] OnNewAsync
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/AggregateService/CommandService.Async.cs:35 — [Obsolete] OnExistingAsync
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/AggregateService/CommandService.Async.cs:57 — [Obsolete] OnExistingAsync
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/AggregateService/CommandService.Async.cs:79 — [Obsolete] OnAnyAsync
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/AggregateService/CommandService.Async.cs:101 — [Obsolete] OnAnyAsync
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/AggregateService/CommandService.Sync.cs:14 — [Obsolete] OnNew
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/FunctionalService/CommandService.cs:16 — [Obsolete] OnNew
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/AggregateService/CommandService.Sync.cs:35 — [Obsolete] OnExisting
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/FunctionalService/CommandService.cs:20 — [Obsolete] OnExisting
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/AggregateService/CommandService.Sync.cs:56 — [Obsolete] OnAny
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/FunctionalService/CommandService.cs:25 — [Obsolete] OnAny
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Persistence/AggregateStore/AggregateStoreExtensions.cs:19 — [Obsolete] Load
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Persistence/AggregateStore/AggregateStoreExtensions.cs:39 — [Obsolete] LoadOrNew
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Persistence/AggregateStore/IAggregateStore.cs:76 — [Obsolete] LoadOrNew
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Persistence/StateStore/IStateStore.cs:20 — [Obsolete] LoadState
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Persistence/StateStore/StateStore.cs:16 — [Obsolete] LoadState
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Persistence/StateStore/StateStore.cs:9 — [Obsolete] StateStore
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Producers/RegistrationExtensions.cs:17 — [Obsolete] AddEventProducer
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Producers/RegistrationExtensions.cs:36 — [Obsolete] AddEventProducer
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Core/src/Eventuous.Producers/RegistrationExtensions.cs:53 — [Obsolete] AddEventProducer
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Experimental/src/Eventuous.Spyglass/RegistrationExtensions.cs:13 — [Obsolete] AddEventuousSpyglass
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Testing/src/Eventuous.Testing/AggregateFactoryExtensions.cs:17 — [Obsolete] CreateTestAggregateInstanceForAggregateId

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Commented-out code · ×13

Commented-out code src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Filters/AsyncHandlingFilter.cs:114 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Filters/AsyncHandlingFilter.cs:115 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Filters/PartitioningFilter.cs:37 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Registrations/NamedRegistrations.cs:18 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Experimental/src/ElasticPlayground/Program.cs:31 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Experimental/src/ElasticPlayground/Program.cs:32 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Experimental/src/ElasticPlayground/Program.cs:34 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Experimental/src/ElasticPlayground/Program.cs:35 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Experimental/src/ElasticPlayground/Program.cs:37 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Experimental/src/ElasticPlayground/Program.cs:38 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Experimental/src/Eventuous.ElasticSearch/Index/IndexSetup.cs:14 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Extensions/src/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore/Http/HttpCommandMapping.cs:92 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Gateway/src/Eventuous.Gateway/GatewayProducer.cs:33 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).

X7 · Silent fallback defaults · Silent fallback default on parse failure · ×5

Silent fallback default on parse failure src/Benchmarks/Benchmarks/ImplementedOptimizationsValidationBenchmarks.cs:201 — `GetItem` falls back to `default` when `_items.TryGetValue(key, out var value) && value is T val` is false, with no log or throw — a malformed value silently becomes that default. Log the input or fail validation. If that constant is the correct answer to the test rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, this is not a silent default: say so in a comment on the member and the row stops firing.
Silent fallback default on parse failure src/Benchmarks/Benchmarks/OptimizationComparisonBenchmarks.cs:83 — `GetItem` falls back to `default` when `_items.TryGetValue(key, out var value) && value is T val` is false, with no log or throw — a malformed value silently becomes that default. Log the input or fail validation. If that constant is the correct answer to the test rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, this is not a silent default: say so in a comment on the member and the row stops firing.
Silent fallback default on parse failure src/Core/src/Eventuous.Shared/Meta/Metadata.cs:24 — `GetString` falls back to `default` when `TryGetValue(key, out var value)` is false, with no log or throw — a malformed value silently becomes that default. Log the input or fail validation. If that constant is the correct answer to the test rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, this is not a silent default: say so in a comment on the member and the row stops firing.
Silent fallback default on parse failure src/Core/src/Eventuous.Shared/Meta/Metadata.cs:26 — `Get` falls back to `default` when `TryGetValue(key, out var value) && value is T v` is false, with no log or throw — a malformed value silently becomes that default. Log the input or fail validation. If that constant is the correct answer to the test rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, this is not a silent default: say so in a comment on the member and the row stops firing.
Silent fallback default on parse failure src/Experimental/src/ElasticPlayground/ResultExtensions.cs:5 — `Dump` falls back to `"Failure"` when `r.Success` is false, with no log or throw — a malformed value silently becomes that default. Log the input or fail validation. If that constant is the correct answer to the test rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, this is not a silent default: say so in a comment on the member and the row stops firing.

D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×3

Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md — No build or setup instructions for installing Eventuous from source. Add a short install guide covering how to get the source, restore packages, and any prerequisites.
Documentation: no usage examples README.md — Usage is mostly conceptual with no real examples (e.g. how to run the Bookings.Postgres sample). Add a Usage section or inline runnable code for the Bookings.Postgres example, showing how to start Docker Compose and access Swagger.
Documentation: no contributor guidance README.md — No guidance on contributing (how to run benchmarks, submit PRs). Add a Contributing section covering benchmarking/run/PR process for the Eventuous.Subscriptions benchmarks directory.

DM8 · Value-object opportunities · Primitive data clump · ×2

Primitive data clump: [bookingprice, currency, guestid, outstandingamount, prepaidamount, roomid] samples/kurrentdb/Bookings.Domain/Bookings/BookingEvents.cs:10 — The parameters [bookingprice, currency, guestid, outstandingamount, prepaidamount, roomid] travel together across 8 signatures and were confirmed as a coherent concept by the model — that's a missing value object. Extracting them into one type (e.g. `Address`, `Money`, `Coordinate`) removes repetition, prevents argument-order mistakes, and gives the concept a home for its rules.
Primitive data clump: [currency, outstanding, paidamount, paidby, paymentid] samples/kurrentdb/Bookings.Domain/Bookings/BookingEvents.cs:23 — The parameters [currency, outstanding, paidamount, paidby, paymentid] travel together across 8 signatures and were confirmed as a coherent concept by the model — that's a missing value object. Extracting them into one type (e.g. `Address`, `Money`, `Coordinate`) removes repetition, prevents argument-order mistakes, and gives the concept a home for its rules.

AX6 · Interface segregation · Fat interface · ×1

Fat interface: IBaseConsumeContext (16 members) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Context/IMessageConsumeContext.cs:13 — `IBaseConsumeContext` declares 16 members: `MessageId`, `MessageType`, `ContentType`, `Stream`, `EventNumber`, `StreamPosition`, `GlobalPosition`, `Created`, `Metadata`, `Items`, `ParentContext`, `HandlingResults`, `CancellationToken`, `Sequence`, `SubscriptionId`, `LogContext`. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. 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.

D18 · Solution Shape · Shell project · ×1

Shell project: Eventuous(net10.0) src/Core/src/Eventuous/Eventuous.csproj — `Eventuous(net10.0)` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.

D18 · Solution Shape · Thin analysable surface across projects · ×1

Thin analysable surface across projects — 1 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `Eventuous.TestHelpers(net9.0)` with 39 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 97 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 0.28 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.

D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1

redundant comment src/Azure/test/Eventuous.Tests.Azure.Storage.Blobs/Fixtures/IntegrationFixture.cs:13 — "Start Azurite container for blob storage" —

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D39 · IL Efficiency · IL efficiency · ×1

IL efficiency: 5 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandMappingGenerator.cs:117 — 5 of 2233 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (> 250 instructions); worst: Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators.HttpCommandMappingGenerator.Execute @ src/Extensions/gen/Eventuous.Extensions.AspNetCore.Generators/HttpCommandMappingGenerator.cs:117, 507 IL instructions; that pulled this dimension to 10.0/10. These bodies are far past the JIT's inline budget, so splitting them does not make them inlinable — what moves the number is emitting less: collapsing LINQ chains and closures on hot paths, and interpolation built eagerly where it is only sometimes used.

DM9 · Scattered domain decisions · Rule about [ErrorCode, Status] decided in 2 places · ×1

Rule about [ErrorCode, Status] decided in 2 places — Azure.RequestFailedException's [ErrorCode, Status] are judged in Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs.BlobStorageProjector<T>, Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs.BlobStorageProjector<T>.Handler<TEvent> — the same decision, restated. Every copy is a chance to drift, and copies drift silently because each one looks correct on its own. Move the judgement onto the type that owns the members and let the call sites ask it.

DM9 · Scattered domain decisions · Rule about [Current, Status] decided in 2 places · ×1

Rule about [Current, Status] decided in 2 places — System.Diagnostics.Activity's [Current, Status] are judged in Eventuous.Subscriptions.Context.ContextResultExtensions, Eventuous.Subscriptions.Context.ContextResultExtensions.extension(Eventuous.Subscriptions.Context.IBaseConsumeContext) — the same decision, restated. Every copy is a chance to drift, and copies drift silently because each one looks correct on its own. Move the judgement onto the type that owns the members and let the call sites ask it.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, 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.

P12 · CI test-gate honesty · Sleep-based test synchronization · ×1

Sleep-based test synchronization — 75 Task.Delay/Thread.Sleep call(s) in test code synchronize with background work by sleeping — a known flakiness precursor on slow runners. Prefer polling with a deadline or completion signals.

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 29/48 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 48, 7 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 11095 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No rollback/health safety · ×1

No rollback/health safety — Deployment is orchestrated by compose, but no service declares a `healthcheck:` and nothing pins a previous image to fall back to — the runtime can tell that the container is up, not that it is serving, so a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No release approval gate · ×1

No release approval gate — Deployment is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever reaches the release trigger goes to production unreviewed, so a mistaken merge or tag is live before anyone can stop it.

P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1

No changelog — 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.)

S1 · Web-Security Posture · No security response headers detected · ×1

No security response headers detected — No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)

S1 · Web-Security Posture · No app-layer HTTPS enforcement detected · ×1

No app-layer HTTPS enforcement detected — No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×1

Duplicated predicate src/Redis/src/Eventuous.Redis/RedisStore.cs:85 — `e.Message.Contains("Reading is not allowed after reader was completed") || cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Redis/src/Eventuous.Redis/RedisStore.cs, src/Redis/src/Eventuous.Redis/Subscriptions/RedisSubscriptionBase.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Not all async methods take a CancellationToken · ×1

Not all async methods take a CancellationToken — Only 151/194 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.

X5 · Nullable reference types · Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score · ×1

Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score — ~1.2 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 146 suppression(s) across the 117389 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

Minor — 105 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×58

Outdated: Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub — Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub 10.0.303 → 10.0.401 available (referenced by Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus).
Outdated: MinVer — MinVer 7.0.0 → 8.0.0 available (referenced by Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus).
Outdated: Azure.Storage.Blobs — Azure.Storage.Blobs 12.29.0 → 12.29.2 available (referenced by Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs).
Outdated: Microsoft.Testing.Extensions.TrxReport — Microsoft.Testing.Extensions.TrxReport 2.3.3 → 2.4.1 available (referenced by Eventuous.Tests.Azure.ServiceBus).
Outdated: Testcontainers.ServiceBus — Testcontainers.ServiceBus 4.13.0 → 4.15.0 available (referenced by Eventuous.Tests.Azure.ServiceBus).
Outdated: TUnit — TUnit 1.63.0 → 1.68.17 available (referenced by Eventuous.Tests.Azure.ServiceBus).
Outdated: Testcontainers.Azurite — Testcontainers.Azurite 4.13.0 → 4.15.0 available (referenced by Eventuous.Tests.Azure.Storage.Blobs).
Outdated: Google.Cloud.PubSub.V1 — Google.Cloud.PubSub.V1 3.19.0 → 3.38.0 available (referenced by Eventuous.GooglePubSub).
Outdated: Testcontainers — Testcontainers 4.13.0 → 4.15.0 available (referenced by Eventuous.Tests.GooglePubSub).
Outdated: Confluent.Kafka — Confluent.Kafka 2.15.0 → 2.15.1 available (referenced by Eventuous.Kafka).
Outdated: Testcontainers.Kafka — Testcontainers.Kafka 4.13.0 → 4.15.0 available (referenced by Eventuous.Tests.Kafka).
Outdated: RabbitMQ.Client — RabbitMQ.Client 7.2.1 → 7.2.2 available (referenced by Eventuous.RabbitMq).
Outdated: Testcontainers.RabbitMq — Testcontainers.RabbitMq 4.13.0 → 4.15.0 available (referenced by Eventuous.Tests.RabbitMq).
Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers — Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers 3.3.4 → 5.9.0 available (referenced by Eventuous.Shared.Generators).
Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp — Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp 4.10.0 → 5.9.0 available (referenced by Eventuous.Shared.Generators).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions 10.0.10 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Eventuous.Producers).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions 10.0.10 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Eventuous.Producers).
Outdated: System.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSource — System.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSource 10.0.10 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Eventuous.Shared).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Diagnostics.HealthChecks — Microsoft.Extensions.Diagnostics.HealthChecks 10.0.10 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Eventuous.Subscriptions).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection 10.0.10 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Eventuous.Tests.Persistence.Base).
Outdated: TUnit.Assertions — TUnit.Assertions 1.63.0 → 1.68.17 available (referenced by Eventuous.Tests.Persistence.Base).
Outdated: TUnit.Core — TUnit.Core 1.63.0 → 1.68.17 available (referenced by Eventuous.Tests.Persistence.Base).
Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis — Microsoft.CodeAnalysis 4.10.0 → 5.9.0 available (referenced by Eventuous.Tests.Shared.Analyzers).
Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.TestHost — Microsoft.AspNetCore.TestHost 10.0.10 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Eventuous.Tests.Subscriptions.Base).
Outdated: Shouldly — Shouldly 4.2.1 → 4.3.0 available (referenced by Eventuous.Tests.Subscriptions).
+ 33 more in this group — see findings.md.

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×46

XML-doc coverage: Benchmarks(net10.0) src/Benchmarks/Benchmarks/Benchmarks.csproj — Benchmarks(net10.0): 11 % XML-doc coverage (10/94).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus(net10.0) src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus/Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus.csproj — Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus(net10.0): 76 % XML-doc coverage (48/63).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs(net10.0) src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs/Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs.csproj — Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs(net10.0): 52 % XML-doc coverage (13/25).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.GooglePubSub.CloudRun(net10.0) src/GooglePubSub/src/Eventuous.GooglePubSub.CloudRun/Eventuous.GooglePubSub.CloudRun.csproj — Eventuous.GooglePubSub.CloudRun(net10.0): 36 % XML-doc coverage (4/11).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.GooglePubSub(net10.0) src/GooglePubSub/src/Eventuous.GooglePubSub/Eventuous.GooglePubSub.csproj — Eventuous.GooglePubSub(net10.0): 45 % XML-doc coverage (24/53).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Kafka(net10.0) src/Kafka/src/Eventuous.Kafka/Eventuous.Kafka.csproj — Eventuous.Kafka(net10.0): 13 % XML-doc coverage (4/31).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.RabbitMq(net10.0) src/RabbitMq/src/Eventuous.RabbitMq/Eventuous.RabbitMq.csproj — Eventuous.RabbitMq(net10.0): 44 % XML-doc coverage (24/55).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Shared.Generators src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/Eventuous.Shared.Generators.csproj — Eventuous.Shared.Generators: 49 % XML-doc coverage (28/57).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators/Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators.csproj — Eventuous.Subscriptions.Generators: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/4).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Application(net10.0) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Application/Eventuous.Application.csproj — Eventuous.Application(net10.0): 31 % XML-doc coverage (29/93).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Diagnostics(net10.0) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Diagnostics/Eventuous.Diagnostics.csproj — Eventuous.Diagnostics(net10.0): 2 % XML-doc coverage (2/125).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Domain(net10.0) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Domain/Eventuous.Domain.csproj — Eventuous.Domain(net10.0): 46 % XML-doc coverage (13/28).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Persistence(net10.0) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Persistence/Eventuous.Persistence.csproj — Eventuous.Persistence(net10.0): 26 % XML-doc coverage (38/146).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Producers(net10.0) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Producers/Eventuous.Producers.csproj — Eventuous.Producers(net10.0): 21 % XML-doc coverage (13/62).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Serialization.Json.Dynamic(net10.0) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Serialization.Json.Dynamic/Eventuous.Serialization.Json.Dynamic.csproj — Eventuous.Serialization.Json.Dynamic(net10.0): 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/5).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Serialization(net10.0) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Serialization/Eventuous.Serialization.csproj — Eventuous.Serialization(net10.0): 24 % XML-doc coverage (5/21).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Shared(net10.0) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Shared/Eventuous.Shared.csproj — Eventuous.Shared(net10.0): 19 % XML-doc coverage (16/83).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Subscriptions(net10.0) src/Core/src/Eventuous.Subscriptions/Eventuous.Subscriptions.csproj — Eventuous.Subscriptions(net10.0): 25 % XML-doc coverage (94/372).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Diagnostics.Logging(net10.0) src/Diagnostics/src/Eventuous.Diagnostics.Logging/Eventuous.Diagnostics.Logging.csproj — Eventuous.Diagnostics.Logging(net10.0): 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/4).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry(net10.0) src/Diagnostics/src/Eventuous.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry/Eventuous.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry.csproj — Eventuous.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry(net10.0): 60 % XML-doc coverage (6/10).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Spyglass.Generators src/Experimental/gen/Eventuous.Spyglass.Generators/Eventuous.Spyglass.Generators.csproj — Eventuous.Spyglass.Generators: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/14).
XML-doc coverage: ElasticPlayground src/Experimental/src/ElasticPlayground/ElasticPlayground.csproj — ElasticPlayground: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/20).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.ElasticSearch(net10.0) src/Experimental/src/Eventuous.ElasticSearch/Eventuous.ElasticSearch.csproj — Eventuous.ElasticSearch(net10.0): 4 % XML-doc coverage (3/84).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Spyglass(net10.0) src/Experimental/src/Eventuous.Spyglass/Eventuous.Spyglass.csproj — Eventuous.Spyglass(net10.0): 19 % XML-doc coverage (3/16).
XML-doc coverage: Eventuous.Redis(net10.0) src/Redis/src/Eventuous.Redis/Eventuous.Redis.csproj — Eventuous.Redis(net10.0): 8 % XML-doc coverage (4/52).
+ 21 more in this group — see findings.md.

D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×1

Mock framework: NSubstitute — Eventuous.Tests.SignalR(net10.0) references NSubstitute.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-0ab65279ca3a439e9b6938efe3a44a91/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	2	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-0ab65279ca3a439e9b6938efe3a44a91/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	26	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list Eventuous.slnx package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	1	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	24	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 108 file(s) — `src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus/Producers/ServiceBusMessageBatchBuilder.cs`, `src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus/Producers/ServiceBusMessageBuilder.cs`, `src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.ServiceBus/Subscriptions/ServiceBusSubscription.cs`, `src/Azure/src/Eventuous.Azure.Storage.Blobs/BlobStorageProjector.cs`, `src/Core/gen/Eventuous.Shared.Generators/EventUsageAnalyzer.cs`, … (+103 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	dotnet	—	dotnet list Eventuous.slnx package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	0	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json

Run 01a0c26f-6ea7-771a-8cc8-5a3391faf2d5 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Eventuous/eventuous

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 78% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 83% · Strong ·

At a glance — Maturity · 74% · Strong ·

At a glance — Readiness · 57% · Adequate ·

At a glance — Security · 73% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 100% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Performance · 85% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts