Executive summary
FCTL3314/HealthNutrition-Backend scores 48 out of 100, but it is rated At risk while a critical security finding is open; the score itself is unchanged.
The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 29 and is rated Weak. Its Observability dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 2 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance and to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 48 to about 62.
32 findings are critical: 12 in Dependency Vulnerabilities, 12 in Static Analysis (SAST), three in Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary, three in IaC & Container Security and two in License Compliance.
Watchdog couldn't measure 13 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Internal API Consistency and Navigability, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 3,296 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €5,200, to rebuild.
If Production Readiness rose from 29 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 48 to about 62.
New since the last survey: 6 findings
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
- Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
- Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
- Schema migrations · Schema created by Django makemigrations at deploy (no migration path) docker/production/entrypoint.sh
Fixed since the last survey: 4 findings
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: PYSEC-2024-230 REDACTED
- Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €5,200 · Estimate
| Cost to rebuild | €1,700 to €8,600, for 29 to 91 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer |
|---|---|
| Difficulty of the problem | High, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write. |
| Quality factor | ×0.7 at a score of 48. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it. |
| Size | Small: 3,296 lines of product code |
Top priorities
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
| uses → | 1 (global) | 2 api.apps | 3 api.base.converters | 4 api.base.services | 5 api.base.time_providers | 6 api.common | 7 api.common.djoser | 8 api.common.filters | 9 api.common.models.mixins | 10 api.common.permissions | 11 api.responses | 12 api.v1.apps | 13 api.v1.auth.apps | 14 api.v1.comments.models | 15 api.v1.nutrition.services.domain.calorie_burning_calculators | 16 api.v1.user_profiles.models | 17 api.v1.user_profiles.services.schemas | 18 api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification | 19 api.v1.users.services.schemas | 20 api.common.tests | 21 api.v1.categories.models | 22 api.v1.categories.services | 23 api.v1.categories.views | 24 api.v1.comments.serializers | 25 api.v1.comparisons.models | 26 api.v1.comparisons.services.views | 27 api.v1.nutrition.services.infrastructure.humanized_calorie_burning_calculators | 28 api.v1.products.models | 29 api.v1.products.services.infrastructure.views_increase | 30 api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters | 31 api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update | 32 api.v1.users.models | 33 api.v1.users.services.domain | 34 api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email | 35 api.v1.users.views | 36 api.utils | 37 api.v1.comparisons.permissions | 38 api.v1.products.serializers | 39 api.v1.users.services.converters | 40 api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (global) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 api.apps | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 api.base.converters | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 api.base.services | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 api.base.time_providers | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 api.common | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 api.common.djoser | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 api.common.filters | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 api.common.models.mixins | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 api.common.permissions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 api.responses | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 api.v1.apps | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 api.v1.auth.apps | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 api.v1.comments.models | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 api.v1.nutrition.services.domain.calorie_burning_calculators | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 api.v1.user_profiles.models | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 api.v1.user_profiles.services.schemas | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 api.v1.users.services.schemas | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 api.common.tests | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 api.v1.categories.models | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 api.v1.categories.services | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 api.v1.categories.views | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 api.v1.comments.serializers | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 api.v1.comparisons.models | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 api.v1.comparisons.services.views | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 api.v1.nutrition.services.infrastructure.humanized_calorie_burning_calculators | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28 api.v1.products.models | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 29 api.v1.products.services.infrastructure.views_increase | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30 api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31 api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32 api.v1.users.models | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 33 api.v1.users.services.domain | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34 api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 35 api.v1.users.views | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 36 api.utils | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 37 api.v1.comparisons.permissions | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 38 api.v1.products.serializers | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 39 api.v1.users.services.converters | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 40 api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
20→9 api.common.tests uses api.common.models.mixins✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.common.tests uses a type in api.common.models.mixins.
- The types involved
api.common.tests.RetrieveViewsIncreaseTest→api.common.models.mixins.ViewsModelMixin
- Direction
- api.common.tests uses api.common.models.mixins, so a change to api.common.models.mixins can break api.common.tests, while a change to api.common.tests can't break api.common.models.mixins.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.common.tests uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
21→9 api.v1.categories.models uses api.common.models.mixins✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in api.v1.categories.models uses a type in api.common.models.mixins.
- The types involved
api.v1.categories.models.Category→api.common.models.mixins.AutoSlugModelMixinapi.v1.categories.models.Category→api.common.models.mixins.ViewsModelMixin
- Direction
- api.v1.categories.models uses api.common.models.mixins, so a change to api.common.models.mixins can break api.v1.categories.models, while a change to api.v1.categories.models can't break api.common.models.mixins.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.categories.models uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→4 api.v1.categories.services uses api.base.services✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.categories.services uses a type in api.base.services.
- The types involved
api.v1.categories.services.CategoryViewsIncreaseService→api.base.services.BaseViewsIncreaseService
- Direction
- api.v1.categories.services uses api.base.services, so a change to api.base.services can break api.v1.categories.services, while a change to api.v1.categories.services can't break api.base.services.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.categories.services uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→11 api.v1.categories.views uses api.responses✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.categories.views uses a type in api.responses.
- The types involved
api.v1.categories.views.CategoryViewSet→api.responses.APIResponse
- Direction
- api.v1.categories.views uses api.responses, so a change to api.responses can break api.v1.categories.views, while a change to api.v1.categories.views can't break api.responses.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.categories.views uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→14 api.v1.comments.serializers uses api.v1.comments.models✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.comments.serializers uses a type in api.v1.comments.models.
- The types involved
api.v1.comments.serializers.DetailedCommentSerializer→api.v1.comments.models.Comment
- Direction
- api.v1.comments.serializers uses api.v1.comments.models, so a change to api.v1.comments.models can break api.v1.comments.serializers, while a change to api.v1.comments.serializers can't break api.v1.comments.models.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.comments.serializers uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
25→9 api.v1.comparisons.models uses api.common.models.mixins✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.comparisons.models uses a type in api.common.models.mixins.
- The types involved
api.v1.comparisons.models.ComparisonGroup→api.common.models.mixins.AutoSlugModelMixin
- Direction
- api.v1.comparisons.models uses api.common.models.mixins, so a change to api.common.models.mixins can break api.v1.comparisons.models, while a change to api.v1.comparisons.models can't break api.common.models.mixins.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.comparisons.models uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→4 api.v1.comparisons.services.views uses api.base.services✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in api.v1.comparisons.services.views uses a type in api.base.services.
- The types involved
api.v1.comparisons.services.views.ComparisonCreateService→api.base.services.IServiceapi.v1.comparisons.services.views.ComparisonDeleteService→api.base.services.IService
- Direction
- api.v1.comparisons.services.views uses api.base.services, so a change to api.base.services can break api.v1.comparisons.services.views, while a change to api.v1.comparisons.services.views can't break api.base.services.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.comparisons.services.views uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→11 api.v1.comparisons.services.views uses api.responses✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.comparisons.services.views uses a type in api.responses.
- The types involved
api.v1.comparisons.services.views.ComparisonCreateService→api.responses.APIResponse
- Direction
- api.v1.comparisons.services.views uses api.responses, so a change to api.responses can break api.v1.comparisons.services.views, while a change to api.v1.comparisons.services.views can't break api.responses.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.comparisons.services.views uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→15 api.v1.nutrition.services.infrastructure.humanized_calorie_burning_calculators uses api.v1.nutrition.services.domain.calorie_burning_calculators✕
- Connections
- 4 pairs of types, where a type in api.v1.nutrition.services.infrastructure.humanized_calorie_burning_calculators uses a type in api.v1.nutrition.services.domain.calorie_burning_calculators.
- The types involved
api.v1.nutrition.services.infrastructure.humanized_calorie_burning_calculators.CyclingCalorieBurningCalculator→api.v1.nutrition.services.domain.calorie_burning_calculators.CyclingCalorieBurningCalculatorapi.v1.nutrition.services.infrastructure.humanized_calorie_burning_calculators.HumanizedCalorieBurningCalculatorProto→api.v1.nutrition.services.domain.calorie_burning_calculators.ExerciseCalorieBurningCalculatorProtoapi.v1.nutrition.services.infrastructure.humanized_calorie_burning_calculators.RunningCalorieBurningCalculator→api.v1.nutrition.services.domain.calorie_burning_calculators.RunningCalorieBurningCalculatorapi.v1.nutrition.services.infrastructure.humanized_calorie_burning_calculators.WalkingCalorieBurningCalculator→api.v1.nutrition.services.domain.calorie_burning_calculators.WalkingCalorieBurningCalculator
- Direction
- api.v1.nutrition.services.infrastructure.humanized_calorie_burning_calculators uses api.v1.nutrition.services.domain.calorie_burning_calculators, so a change to api.v1.nutrition.services.domain.calorie_burning_calculators can break api.v1.nutrition.services.infrastructure.humanized_calorie_burning_calculators, while a change to api.v1.nutrition.services.infrastructure.humanized_calorie_burning_calculators can't break api.v1.nutrition.services.domain.calorie_burning_calculators.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.nutrition.services.infrastructure.humanized_calorie_burning_calculators uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
28→9 api.v1.products.models uses api.common.models.mixins✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in api.v1.products.models uses a type in api.common.models.mixins.
- The types involved
api.v1.products.models.Product→api.common.models.mixins.AutoSlugModelMixinapi.v1.products.models.Product→api.common.models.mixins.ViewsModelMixin
- Direction
- api.v1.products.models uses api.common.models.mixins, so a change to api.common.models.mixins can break api.v1.products.models, while a change to api.v1.products.models can't break api.common.models.mixins.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.products.models uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
29→4 api.v1.products.services.infrastructure.views_increase uses api.base.services✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.products.services.infrastructure.views_increase uses a type in api.base.services.
- The types involved
api.v1.products.services.infrastructure.views_increase.ProductViewsIncreaseService→api.base.services.BaseViewsIncreaseService
- Direction
- api.v1.products.services.infrastructure.views_increase uses api.base.services, so a change to api.base.services can break api.v1.products.services.infrastructure.views_increase, while a change to api.v1.products.services.infrastructure.views_increase can't break api.base.services.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.products.services.infrastructure.views_increase uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
30→3 api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters uses api.base.converters✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters uses a type in api.base.converters.
- The types involved
api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters.UserProfileConverter→api.base.converters.IDjangoORMToDTOConverter
- Direction
- api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters uses api.base.converters, so a change to api.base.converters can break api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters, while a change to api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters can't break api.base.converters.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
30→16 api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters uses api.v1.user_profiles.models✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters uses a type in api.v1.user_profiles.models.
- The types involved
api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters.UserProfileConverter→api.v1.user_profiles.models.UserProfile
- Direction
- api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters uses api.v1.user_profiles.models, so a change to api.v1.user_profiles.models can break api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters, while a change to api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters can't break api.v1.user_profiles.models.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
30→17 api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters uses api.v1.user_profiles.services.schemas✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters uses a type in api.v1.user_profiles.services.schemas.
- The types involved
api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters.UserProfileConverter→api.v1.user_profiles.services.schemas.UserProfile
- Direction
- api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters uses api.v1.user_profiles.services.schemas, so a change to api.v1.user_profiles.services.schemas can break api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters, while a change to api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters can't break api.v1.user_profiles.services.schemas.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.user_profiles.services.converters uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
31→4 api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update uses api.base.services✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update uses a type in api.base.services.
- The types involved
api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update.UserProfileUpdateService→api.base.services.IService
- Direction
- api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update uses api.base.services, so a change to api.base.services can break api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update, while a change to api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update can't break api.base.services.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
31→11 api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update uses api.responses✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update uses a type in api.responses.
- The types involved
api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update.UserProfileUpdateService→api.responses.APIResponse
- Direction
- api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update uses api.responses, so a change to api.responses can break api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update, while a change to api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update can't break api.responses.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
31→16 api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update uses api.v1.user_profiles.models✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update uses a type in api.v1.user_profiles.models.
- The types involved
api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update.UserProfileUpdateService→api.v1.user_profiles.models.UserProfile
- Direction
- api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update uses api.v1.user_profiles.models, so a change to api.v1.user_profiles.models can break api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update, while a change to api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update can't break api.v1.user_profiles.models.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.user_profiles.services.infrastructure.user_profile_update uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
32→9 api.v1.users.models uses api.common.models.mixins✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.users.models uses a type in api.common.models.mixins.
- The types involved
api.v1.users.models.User→api.common.models.mixins.SlugModelMixin
- Direction
- api.v1.users.models uses api.common.models.mixins, so a change to api.common.models.mixins can break api.v1.users.models, while a change to api.v1.users.models can't break api.common.models.mixins.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.users.models uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
33→5 api.v1.users.services.domain uses api.base.time_providers✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.users.services.domain uses a type in api.base.time_providers.
- The types involved
api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification→api.base.time_providers.ITimeProvider
- Direction
- api.v1.users.services.domain uses api.base.time_providers, so a change to api.base.time_providers can break api.v1.users.services.domain, while a change to api.v1.users.services.domain can't break api.base.time_providers.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.users.services.domain uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
33→18 api.v1.users.services.domain uses api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.users.services.domain uses a type in api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification.
- The types involved
api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification→api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification.EVAvailabilityStatus
- Direction
- api.v1.users.services.domain uses api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification, so a change to api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification can break api.v1.users.services.domain, while a change to api.v1.users.services.domain can't break api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.users.services.domain uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
33→19 api.v1.users.services.domain uses api.v1.users.services.schemas✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.users.services.domain uses a type in api.v1.users.services.schemas.
- The types involved
api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification→api.v1.users.services.schemas.User
- Direction
- api.v1.users.services.domain uses api.v1.users.services.schemas, so a change to api.v1.users.services.schemas can break api.v1.users.services.domain, while a change to api.v1.users.services.domain can't break api.v1.users.services.schemas.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.users.services.domain uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
34→4 api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email uses api.base.services✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email uses a type in api.base.services.
- The types involved
api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email.UserChangeEmailService→api.base.services.IService
- Direction
- api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email uses api.base.services, so a change to api.base.services can break api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email, while a change to api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email can't break api.base.services.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
34→11 api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email uses api.responses✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email uses a type in api.responses.
- The types involved
api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email.UserChangeEmailService→api.responses.APIResponse
- Direction
- api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email uses api.responses, so a change to api.responses can break api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email, while a change to api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email can't break api.responses.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_change_email uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
35→11 api.v1.users.views uses api.responses✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in api.v1.users.views uses a type in api.responses.
- The types involved
api.v1.users.views.UserChangeEmailView→api.responses.APIResponseapi.v1.users.views.UserEmailVerifierView→api.responses.APIResponseapi.v1.users.views.UserSendEmailVerificationView→api.responses.APIResponse
- Direction
- api.v1.users.views uses api.responses, so a change to api.responses can break api.v1.users.views, while a change to api.v1.users.views can't break api.responses.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.users.views uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
36→32 api.utils uses api.v1.users.models✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.utils uses a type in api.v1.users.models.
- The types involved
api.utils.tests→api.v1.users.models.User
- Direction
- api.utils uses api.v1.users.models, so a change to api.v1.users.models can break api.utils, while a change to api.utils can't break api.v1.users.models.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.utils uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
37→25 api.v1.comparisons.permissions uses api.v1.comparisons.models✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in api.v1.comparisons.permissions uses a type in api.v1.comparisons.models.
- The types involved
api.v1.comparisons.permissions.IsComparisonCreatorOrReadOnly→api.v1.comparisons.models.Comparisonapi.v1.comparisons.permissions.IsComparisonGroupAuthorOrReadOnly→api.v1.comparisons.models.ComparisonGroup
- Direction
- api.v1.comparisons.permissions uses api.v1.comparisons.models, so a change to api.v1.comparisons.models can break api.v1.comparisons.permissions, while a change to api.v1.comparisons.permissions can't break api.v1.comparisons.models.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.comparisons.permissions uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
38→28 api.v1.products.serializers uses api.v1.products.models✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.products.serializers uses a type in api.v1.products.models.
- The types involved
api.v1.products.serializers.ProductWithCaloriesBurningTimeSerializer→api.v1.products.models.Product
- Direction
- api.v1.products.serializers uses api.v1.products.models, so a change to api.v1.products.models can break api.v1.products.serializers, while a change to api.v1.products.serializers can't break api.v1.products.models.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.products.serializers uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
39→3 api.v1.users.services.converters uses api.base.converters✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in api.v1.users.services.converters uses a type in api.base.converters.
- The types involved
api.v1.users.services.converters.EVConverter→api.base.converters.IDjangoORMToDTOConverterapi.v1.users.services.converters.UserConverter→api.base.converters.IDjangoORMToDTOConverter
- Direction
- api.v1.users.services.converters uses api.base.converters, so a change to api.base.converters can break api.v1.users.services.converters, while a change to api.v1.users.services.converters can't break api.base.converters.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.users.services.converters uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
39→19 api.v1.users.services.converters uses api.v1.users.services.schemas✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in api.v1.users.services.converters uses a type in api.v1.users.services.schemas.
- The types involved
api.v1.users.services.converters.EVConverter→api.v1.users.services.schemas.EmailVerificationapi.v1.users.services.converters.UserConverter→api.v1.users.services.schemas.User
- Direction
- api.v1.users.services.converters uses api.v1.users.services.schemas, so a change to api.v1.users.services.schemas can break api.v1.users.services.converters, while a change to api.v1.users.services.converters can't break api.v1.users.services.schemas.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.users.services.converters uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
39→32 api.v1.users.services.converters uses api.v1.users.models✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.users.services.converters uses a type in api.v1.users.models.
- The types involved
api.v1.users.services.converters.EVConverter→api.v1.users.models.EmailVerification
- Direction
- api.v1.users.services.converters uses api.v1.users.models, so a change to api.v1.users.models can break api.v1.users.services.converters, while a change to api.v1.users.services.converters can't break api.v1.users.models.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.users.services.converters uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
40→4 api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses api.base.services✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses a type in api.base.services.
- The types involved
api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification.EVSenderService→api.base.services.IServiceapi.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification.UserEmailVerifierService→api.base.services.IService
- Direction
- api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses api.base.services, so a change to api.base.services can break api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification, while a change to api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification can't break api.base.services.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
40→11 api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses api.responses✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses a type in api.responses.
- The types involved
api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification.EVSenderService→api.responses.APIResponseapi.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification.UserEmailVerifierService→api.responses.APIResponse
- Direction
- api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses api.responses, so a change to api.responses can break api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification, while a change to api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification can't break api.responses.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
40→18 api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses a type in api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification.
- The types involved
api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification.EVSenderService→api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification.EVAvailabilityStatus
- Direction
- api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification, so a change to api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification can break api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification, while a change to api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification can't break api.v1.users.services.domain.email_verification.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
40→32 api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses api.v1.users.models✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses a type in api.v1.users.models.
- The types involved
api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification.EVSenderService→api.v1.users.models.EmailVerification
- Direction
- api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses api.v1.users.models, so a change to api.v1.users.models can break api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification, while a change to api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification can't break api.v1.users.models.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api.v1.users.services.infrastructure.user_email_verification uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Domain Modelling
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures | 32 | High / Critical |
| A05:2025 — Injection | 16 | High / Critical |
| A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration | 12 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, resolve the two banned license findings to ensure full compliance. Next, address the fifteen orphaned files, prioritizing views.py, serializers.py, and base.py, while also establishing architectural decision records. Finally, implement structured logging across runnable modules and integrate a SAST step into the CI pipeline to prevent security regressions from being merged.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 2 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance. | +8.8 pts | Low | License Compliance |
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +7.5 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Resolve the 15 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with views.py (3), serializers.py (3), base.py. | +8.1 pts | Medium | Knowledge Freshness |
| Log through `logging.getLogger(__name__)` (or structlog) with a JSON formatter at meaningful points in the modules you run. | +5.5 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: bandit, `semgrep --config=p/python`, or CodeQL's python pack — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. | +5.5 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them. | +5.4 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.0/10. | +3.4 pts | Medium | Documentation Quality |
| Replace Django makemigrations at deploy with committed Django migrations (run `makemigrations` in development, review and commit the files, run only `migrate` at deploy) so the production schema can evolve safely and reproducibly. | +2.7 pts | Medium | Schema migrations |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 0.2 | Slop | Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 1.3 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 1.3 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 1.3 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 5.6 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 6.9 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.9 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.9 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED |
| api/v1/comparisons/tests/test_views.py | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| api/v1/products/managers.py | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: managers.py ↔ views.py |
| core/settings/base.py | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: base.py ↔ urls.py |
| api/v1/comparisons/managers.py | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: managers.py ↔ views.py |
How the grades work
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.
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.
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
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. 65 of 68 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 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.
What we checked — 68 dimensions across the health lenses
- 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, 81 of 109 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| 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 |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- 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. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.py) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (`coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`) 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. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (`coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`) 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 — then the real number is read on the next scan.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is an ADMISSION gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (pyproject.toml), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here. D22 DOES collect the public API of every language in this tree, and admits a project only when its manifest makes that ecosystem's publication act in a form the marker recognises — so what is missing is not a collector but an admission rule for the publication act this repository makes, if it makes one. The remedy is a better discriminator for that marker — not a collector, and no change to the scan image can close it. The marker's rules are measured to refuse applications, so one refused repository is the rule working as calibrated; several are the evidence that it is too strict.
- D27 Navigability — 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. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
- AX6 Interface segregation — 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. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — 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. Render strategy: boot via DockerCompose (REDACTED). compose up failed (exit 14 — a file the compose project references is missing) — env file .env not found: stat .env: no such file or directory; runtime evidence skipped.
- C1 Data Protection — 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. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
- DM9 Scattered domain decisions — 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. Arm two tells a construction that PRODUCES a measurement from one that merely passes it along, and this repository's frontend does not compute that fact. A measurement built independently in two places would not appear above.
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — 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. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Python is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — 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. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Python is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- M3 Folder & project structure — 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. Whether the tests sit apart from production code is not visible here, because the suite is not in a form this pass reads. The test-separation credit is granted rather than withheld: this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about the repository's tests. You can widen what we reach: keep the test surface somewhere a reader can find it without opening a binary — an exported/checked-in test source tree beside the production code makes the suite reviewable, diffable and discoverable by tooling.
- X16 Unfloored truncation loop — 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. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — 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. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — 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. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X4 Structured logging — 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. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, Python and PHP make no call through a named logger, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X5 Nullable reference types — 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. This check reads C# syntax and MSBuild project configuration, TypeScript source and its tsconfig files, Java source and its package and module declarations, PHP source and its PHPStan and Psalm configuration, Dart source and its pubspec language version, Ruby source and its Sorbet and Steep configuration, Scala source and its build's explicit-nulls, WartRemover and Scalafix settings, and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no TypeScript was found, and this repository's Python is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — 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.
- 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.
- D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- 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.
- 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.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and 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 REDACTED (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.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
- 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.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 10 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
D9 · Test Distribution
42 test methods: 42 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Python suite contributes 42 test function(s) across 10 file(s) declaring at least one — every `def test…` in a file pytest or unittest would collect, which is those frameworks' own definition of a case; a parametrize table counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is read from file names and paths only.
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). Python (repository root, 16 test files): measured (0 flaky).
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
12 outdated, 0 yanked pinned Python distributions. 12 of 22 shipped distributions were graded against pypi.org (0 not published there, 10 declared without an exact pin, which installs the newest release the declaration admits and so cannot be behind one). Only EXACT pins are graded for currency: a floor or a range already installs the newest release it admits, so reporting one would report this repository for being current. Whether a deliberate upper cap has itself gone stale is a different and weaker question, and is not asked. Whether any distribution is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — PyPI publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Lockfiles are not read (REDACTED, uv.lock, Pipfile.lock, pdm.lock), so a lock-resolved install is outside this verdict. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question.
What to do
- Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D14 · License Compliance
2 of 74 shipped Python distribution(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from PyPI over the distributions a consumer installs — this repository's 22 declared runtime requirement(s) closed transitively over each distribution's published `requires_dist` (52 reached that way). Requirements it states ONLY under an extra, a PEP 735 dependency group, a Poetry dev group or a dev-named requirements file are excluded: pip does not install any of them for a consumer. ★ This repository commits no dependency lockfile that this pass reads, so each licence is the one PyPI publishes for the distribution's CURRENT release rather than for a pinned version. 6 of them publish no licence on PyPI this pass can read; that is missing data, not a violation, and none of them is charged. This repository publishes itself under Apache 2.0, which is its own choice and is not judged here.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
- Enforce License Compliance in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
D17 · Explicit Debt
1 deducted task-comment markers across 3296 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with test_views.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's root README is a single cohesive document covering the project (a Django DRF app for comparing food product nutritional values) with a clear table of contents and an outline that promises every section present in the full documentation set. It begins with a strong branding image and a bulleted list of technologies, then dives into a Description section that states what the API does before beginning to detail features, local installation, server deployment, pre-commit hooks, and more — all of which are clipped mid-sentence by the scanner, so further sections cannot be flagged as missing. The visible content is clear but the clip prevents definitive judgment on completeness.
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.0/10. — The repository's root README is a single cohesive document covering the project (a Django DRF app for comparing food product nutritional values) with a clear table of contents and an outline that promises every section present in the full documentation set. It begins with a strong branding image and a bulleted list of technologies, then dives into a Description section that states what the API does before beginning to detail features, local installation, server deployment, pre-commit hooks, and more — all of which are clipped mid-sentence by the scanner, so further sections cannot be flagged as missing. The visible content is clear but the clip prevents definitive judgment on completeness.
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were 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).
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 1 build units (Python) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
16 finding(s): 0 critical, 12 high, 4 medium, 0 low. 7 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.
What to do
- Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 7 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
25 finding(s): 4 critical, 8 high, 13 medium, 0 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 8 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (8). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).
- Resolve the 3 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Critical vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
D31 · IaC & Container Security
12 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 7 medium, 2 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 3 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
- Resolve the 7 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
15 of 15 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is core/settings/base.py. Counted over 15 of the 168 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
What to do
- Resolve the 15 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with views.py (3), serializers.py (3), base.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: managers.py↔views.py 67%; base.py↔urls.py 67%; managers.py↔views.py 50%
What to do
- Resolve the 3 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with managers.py (2), base.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
What to do
- Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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).
D43 · Malicious Dependencies
No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 0 platform declaration(s) and 22 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, 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.
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
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.
AX2 · Stateful singletons
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
AX4 · Dependency direction
AX5 · Architecture & structure
C2 · Access Controls
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries
DM11 · Constructible invalid state
DM12 · Ambient inputs in the domain
DM4 · Rich vs anemic model
DM5 · Encapsulated state
- `AutoSlugModelMixin` exposes publicly writable state (SLUG_RELATED_FIELD). — api/common/models/mixins.py:25
What to do
- Make entity setters private/init-only and hand collections out as IReadOnlyList/IReadOnlyCollection over a private backing field; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
- `ComparisonGroup` is a domain concept fused to persistence ON ITS OWN DECLARATION (Django/SQLAlchemy — `models.Model`/`db.Model`) — the domain entity IS the ORM row (active-record), and it carries domain behaviour on the persistence type. A schema/persistence change ripples straight into the domain. Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + a mapper, and the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository). — api/v1/comparisons/models.py:8
- `User` is a domain concept fused to persistence ON ITS OWN DECLARATION (Django/SQLAlchemy — `models.Model`/`db.Model`) — the domain entity IS the ORM row (active-record), and it carries domain behaviour on the persistence type. A schema/persistence change ripples straight into the domain. Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + a mapper, and the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository). — api/v1/users/models.py:22
- `EmailVerification` is a domain concept fused to persistence ON ITS OWN DECLARATION (Django/SQLAlchemy — `models.Model`/`db.Model`) — the domain entity IS the ORM row (active-record), and it carries domain behaviour on the persistence type. A schema/persistence change ripples straight into the domain. Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + a mapper, and the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository). — api/v1/users/models.py:69
What to do
- Invert domain→infrastructure dependencies: declare interfaces in the domain, implement them in infrastructure (Dependency Inversion).
DM8 · Value-object opportunities
DM9 · Scattered domain decisions
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
M2 · Architecture documentation
- 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 your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
What to do
- Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README claims a frontend StoreTracker-Frontend project but the evidence contains no such frontend repository — searched for: `StoreTracker-Frontend`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (package.json and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, REDACTED); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:1
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README claims a frontend StoreTracker-Frontend project but the evidence contains no such frontend repository.
P1 · CI/CD gates
P10 · Library API & versioning
P2 · Observability
- No logging call was found in the 168 Python production file(s) this check read across 1 module(s). Each was searched for its ecosystem's logging libraries (Python: logging, structlog, loguru) and for a call on a receiver named `log`/`logger` (or ending in `Logger`/`_logger`) with a level verb. It cannot see logging through a repo-local wrapper named otherwise, or in source it did not read — this is 'no logging found by this walk', not a verdict that nothing here logs. If it is right, production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Log through `logging.getLogger(__name__)` (or structlog) with a JSON formatter at meaningful points in the modules you run.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry-sdk) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route) for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add bandit, `semgrep --config=p/python`, or CodeQL's python pack as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 2333 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: bandit, `semgrep --config=p/python`, or CodeQL's python pack — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- 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.
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.
P6 · Release Hygiene
- 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.
P8 · Schema migrations
- Django makemigrations at deploy builds the schema from the model at startup and keeps no migration history, so there is no reviewed, repeatable upgrade path for an existing production database — a renamed column is dropped and re-added rather than migrated. Adopt committed Django migrations (run `makemigrations` in development, review and commit the files, run only `migrate` at deploy), so every schema change is a versioned file applied the same way in every environment. — docker/production/entrypoint.sh:3
What to do
- Replace Django makemigrations at deploy with committed Django migrations (run `makemigrations` in development, review and commit the files, run only `migrate` at deploy) so the production schema can evolve safely and reproducibly.
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. This is reported because `REDACTED` builds the web-server image that serves this application, so the configuration that would carry these headers is in this repository and was read in full. (−2.0 on this card.) — REDACTED:1
What to do
- Set security response headers on the surface this repository serves: an `add_header` directive per header in the nginx/Caddy/Apache config, a `_headers` / `vercel.json` / `netlify.toml` entry for a static host, or `helmet()` in the HTTP server. `Content-Security-Policy` is the one that pays for itself first — it is what contains an injected script once one reaches the page — followed by `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff` and a frame policy (`X-Frame-Options: DENY`, or CSP `frame-ancestors`). Where the app is served from a build container, the header configuration belongs in the image beside the built assets, so it ships with them rather than depending on where it lands.
X1 · Async correctness
X12 · Unreachable branch
X13 · Undrained process stream
X14 · Bypassable address classification
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
X22 · Contradicted release guard
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
X25 · Inert configuration knob
X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
X3 · Exception handling
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Architecture | 80% | Strong | Solid. |
| Maturity | 47% | Weak — gated by D34, M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 29% | Weak — gated by P2, P3, P8 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 76% | Adequate — gated by D29, D30, D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Domain Modelling | 74% | Strong | Solid. |
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (an audit-log table or model — a class or table named for it — django-simple-history, django-auditlog, django-reversion, django-pghistory or SQLAlchemy-Continuum recording each change, or an event-sourced store beside one) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
- C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 59 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's Python imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
- AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — compose up failed (exit 14 — a file the compose project references is missing) — env file .env not found: stat .env: no such file or directory; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D10 Test Quality — ~900 lines of test source are present (.py) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D16 Bus Factor — bus factor 1 — one contributor carries this repository
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Aggregate roots were found in only one source directory (api), which is a layered codebase, not two contexts. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling 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"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.py), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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.
- 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.
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- 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.
- D5 Coupling — Not applicable — this Python build ships 1 production module(s), so there is no coupling BETWEEN modules to measure. (Its test and non-production modules are not part of the shipped graph.)
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- DM10 One transaction, one aggregate — no repository writes detected — no operation to judge against the one-aggregate rule
- 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
- DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected — no HTTP client call or construction in the Python source (service entry point: api/urls.py:5 (urlpatterns =))
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`) 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
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for a pytest-benchmark or pytest-codspeed dependency with tests taking the `benchmark` fixture, an asv.conf.json with its `time_`/`mem_`/`peakmem_` benchmarks, or a pyperf Runner, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Python runs on a garbage-collected runtime that gives a program no allocation-control idiom to choose on a hot path — no pools, stack allocation or value types — so allocation awareness is not something this code can be rated on.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: this repository declares no async functions, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Python was read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller — a Python request takes no token: asyncio cancels the task and trio or anyio the scope that made it, from outside the call, and requests, httpx, aiohttp and gRPC take a timeout, not a cancellation
- X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — 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)
Critical — 32 finding(s)
- 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
- Domain fused to persistence infrastructure: ComparisonGroup api/v1/comparisons/models.py:8
- Domain fused to persistence infrastructure: User api/v1/users/models.py:22
- Domain fused to persistence infrastructure: EmailVerification api/v1/users/models.py:69
- Banned license: unidecode
- Banned license: gprof2dot
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
Serious — 35 finding(s)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Change coupling: managers.py ↔ views.py api/v1/products/managers.py:1
- Change coupling: base.py ↔ urls.py core/settings/base.py:1
- Change coupling: managers.py ↔ views.py api/v1/comparisons/managers.py:1
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- bus factor 1 — one contributor carries this repository
- TodoComment api/v1/comparisons/tests/test_views.py:22
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Mutable entity: AutoSlugModelMixin api/common/models/mixins.py:25
- No structured logging
- Schema created by Django makemigrations at deploy (no migration path) docker/production/entrypoint.sh:3
Minor — 30 finding(s)
- Orphaned file core/settings/base.py:1
- Orphaned file api/v1/users/services/infrastructure/user_email_verification.py:1
- Orphaned file api/v1/comparisons/views.py:1
- Orphaned file api/v1/comparisons/managers.py:1
- Orphaned file api/base/services.py:1
- Orphaned file api/v1/comparisons/serializers.py:1
- Orphaned file api/v1/nutrition/services/infrastructure/humanized_calorie_burning_calculators.py:1
- Orphaned file api/common/tests.py:1
- Orphaned file api/v1/users/models.py:1
- Orphaned file api/v1/users/services/infrastructure/user_change_email.py:1
- Orphaned file api/v1/products/serializers.py:1
- Orphaned file api/v1/users/views.py:1
- Orphaned file api/v1/comparisons/services/views.py:1
- Orphaned file api/v1/users/serializers.py:1
- Orphaned file api/v1/nutrition/services/domain/calorie_burning_calculators.py:1
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- No ADRs found
- Orphaned files with no living knowledge
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- No ADRs
- No src/ separation
- README/code drift README.md:1
- No SAST
- No rollback/health safety
- No changelog
- No security response headers detected REDACTED:1
Minor — 12 finding(s)
- Outdated: celery
- Outdated: django
- Outdated: django-cleanup
- Outdated: django-cors-headers
- Outdated: django-environ
- Outdated: django-filter
- Outdated: django-redis
- Outdated: djangorestframework
- Outdated: djangorestframework-simplejwt
- Outdated: djoser
- Outdated: eventlet
- Outdated: pillow
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| 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-e75a554d7764474bbfddfd89c6d1641f/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | 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-e75a554d7764474bbfddfd89c6d1641f/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 . | 16 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm . | 25 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 12 | 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. | 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 | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm . | 0 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |